Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MILFORD HAVEN CONSERVANCY BILL Lords Amendments agreed to.

GINNS AND GUTTERIDGE, LEICESTER (CREMATORIUM) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday 19 January.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Monday 16 January.

DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL [Lords] (By Order) Order for Second reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 19 January.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Beadnell Village School

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his decision to allow Northumberland education authority to close Beadnell village school at the second application was based on any change of general policy towards village schools.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): No, Sir.

Mr. Beith: As there was no change of circumstances at the school between the first and second applications, why does the Minister think that his predecessor was wrong to refuse the original application? Is he aware that Northumberland and other authorities regard the decision as a signal of a change in general policy and that he will shortly receive another application to close a village school at Craster in Northumberland?

Mr. Dunn: When my right hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 25 July he made it clear that he decided to approve the authority's new proposal to close the school because circumstances had changed. Numbers of pupils at the school were likely to fall. The extent of the decline might be a matter for disagreement, but there is no doubt that the school would have been extremely small and that

the educational disadvantages which that inevitably entails would have come about. Moreover, the authority had agreed to make arrangements for transport to alternative Church schools if parents so desired.

Academic Results

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what studies are in hand to examine the relationship between academic results and the form of organisation of secondary schools.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): The Department is not currently sponsoring any research studies which are concerned solely with this topic but it is assessing the possibilities for research in this area as a preliminary to considering whether public funds should be committed to it.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his statisticians are now satisfied, contrary to earlier press reports, that recent research into examination results in grammar, secondary modern and comprehensive schools for the National Council of Educational Standards by Lady Cox and Dr. Marks was valid, based on a proper sample and professionally sound? Will my right hon. Friend consider the NCES equally with the National Children's Bureau and other similar bodies for grant purposes, as both do valid research? Does he agree—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked about three questions already.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend repudiate the blacking of that research by Opposition Members and some educational ideologues because they dislike its findings?

Sir Keith Joseph: It is clear from the letter by my statisticians, which by normal convention I do not publish, that they never used the word "flawed" in referring to the report. They have accepted that the samples which were used for the report were valid and that the difference between them and the report is one which is often argued between professional researchers about the extent to which regression analyses should be used.
I regret that the officials who advise me on this and other subjects have been accused of acting with political motives. One has been named in that context. I am satisfied that officials who advise me tender advice which is objective, that they well understand and respect Government policy, that it is for local education authorities to propose changes in the organisation of schools and that the holder of my office should decide each case on its merits.
As to my hon. Friend's other question, I shall consider all proposals for research on their merits.

Mr. Radice: I thank the Secretary of State for his handsome apology to me for misrepresenting my letter to The Times of 3 December at the Report stage of the Education (Grants and Awards) Bill. Is he aware that the question still remains whether he is prepared to accept the professional advice of his Department that the Cox and Marks study seriously underestimated the impact of social and economic factors on examination results? Will he now reassure the House that he intends to live up to the standards of his high office and his personal standards as a Fellow of All Souls and re fuse to give the backing of


public moneys to Cox and Marks, who have broken the cardinal rule of research by fixing the evidence to produce the results which confirm their own particular prejudice?

Sir Keith Joseph: I deny the proposition about the attitude of Cox and Marks. The area of disagreement is one that often occurs with statisticians, and I shall consider all proposals on their merits.

Religious Education

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will monitor the way in which local education authorities provide religious education and daily corporate acts of worship in schools.

Mr. Dunn: Responsibility for ensuring that the statutory requirements are met rests in the first instance with local education authorities and the governing bodies of schools. Information about current practice in schools is available to my right hon. Friend from Her Majesty's inspectors.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Manchester local authority has challenged religious education on the ground that to include Christianity might be offensive to non-Christian minorities. Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is a legal commitment to provide religious education and the opportunity for a daily act of worship in all state schools, and does he agree that those who wish to be exempted should be, but that the basis of our religious education should remain Christian?

Mr. Dunn: I am happy to confirm that the legal requirements of the Education Act 1944 are as my hon. Friend has said. There are detailed requirements on the local education authority with regard to worship and religious education. No changes in religious instruction can take place without convening a conference of Churches and other interests, as laid down in the 1944 Act. My hon. Friend is correct in his understanding of the legal position.

Mr. Jim Callaghan: How, in the monitoring of religious education in schools, has the Minister changed the balance of the historic share of places for religious education in colleges of education, in the light of the proposed closure of the De La Salle teacher training college in my constituency?

Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman's question does not lie within my responsibility. The responsibility for religious worship and instruction in schools lies with the local education authority. Her Majesty's inspectorate has certain responsibilities in that regard.

Mr. Sims: While the legal requirements are as my hon. Friend has explained, is not the truth of the matter simply that there are not enough teachers qualified to teach religious education? What is my hon. Friend doing to improve the supply of such teachers?

Mr. Dunn: I am concerned that there should be an adequate supply of teachers of religous education within the total number being trained. In the restructuring of initial training last year we gave guidance on the balance of places for secondary training between subjects, which involved an increase in the proportion of places devoted to religious education. This will go some way to meet my hon. Friend's fear.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that there is a greater adherence to religious education of one kind or another in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain?

Mr. Dunn: I should ask the hon. Gentleman for his views on Marxism rather than on Christianity.

Pupil-teacher Ratios

Mr. Freud: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy to lay before Parliament an annual statement of pupil-teacher ratios in maintained primary and secondary schools.

Mr. Dunn: Summary figures for these ratios have long been included in the report on education and science presented annually to Parliament. More detailed information is given in the Department's statistical bulletins.

Mr. Freud: Will the Minister accept that the proposed rate-capping legislation is likely to have a substantial effect on pupil-teacher ratios? Will he ensure that the figures are published within a few months after the passing of the rate-capping legislation so that we can see the effects on pupil-teacher ratios?

Mr. Dunn: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. Staffing provision is the responsibility of local education authorities. It is for them to decide the number of teachers to deploy in their local areas. It is a matter for them and is clearly known as such.

Mr. Powley: If we are to provide more teachers in the education service, does my hon. Friend agree that they, too, have a responsibility when their organisations seek wage and salary increases to keep those increases at a moderate level, so that more resources can be spent on real forms of education, instead of on wages and salaries?

Mr. Dunn: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. If costs are contained, with the cash that remains much more can be done in other essential areas.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will the Minister answer the question that was put to him by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud)? If, under the Bill that was published today, local education authorities are prevented from increasing their rates, what effect will that have on teacher-pupil ratios?

Mr. Dunn: I cannot speculate on that. Local education authorities are responsible for the management of their cash flows and resources. How they behave is entirely a matter for them.

Mr. Radice: Is the Minister aware that the real education picture, as shown in the HMI report, is one of shortages of teachers, inadequate curriculums, not enough books and materials, and an increasingly urgent need for repairs to school buildings? Does he agree, as the local education authorities told the Secretary of State, that the situation will only be made worse by the level of RSG settlement for 1984–85 and by the Bill published today to take away the ability of LEAs to charge rates as they think fit? How will the Government Actuary's report, which is published today, on the increase in teacher pension contributions affect the financial position of LEAs?

Mr. Dunn: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that pupil-techer ratios are at their best level


ever. That is a matter of pride, and we expect the trend to continue into the coming year. I am happy to give the House that information. It is good news which should be welcomed in a robust fashion.

Higher Education (Lecturers)

Mr. Gerald Bowden: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied that public sector higher education can attract lecturers of appropriate quality in sufficient numbers against competition from the universities.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Peter Brooke): Yes, Sir. I am not aware of any significant recruitment difficulties at present.

Mr. Bowden: In considering the future funding and staffing of higher education in the public sector, will my hon. Friend take careful note of the views of the Association of Polytechnic Teachers, a union which is concerned with the interests of teachers in polytechnics as well as with maintaining academic excellence in those institutions?

Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend and I entertain representations from many bodies on many subjects, the APT among them, and we are always happy to receive them.

Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that there is often competition between the two? Has the Minister noticed in Northern Ireland, for example, where the new University of Ulster did not manage to get its intake of students, that as a result of the Select Committee going there and discussing the matter with them there is now a fusion between the Ulster polytechnic and the new University of Northern Ireland? Is that not a harbinger for the future, when the two should be wedded together? Is it not something about which we should all think deeply in the interests of higher education?

Mr. Brooke: In fluid times a number of different proposals are put to the Government, including proposals for polyversities, and clearly the Government will entertain each on its merits.

Mr. Flannery: The answer was too brief.

Village Schools (Closures)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will publish guidelines to be used when closures of village schools are proposed.

Mr. Dunn: My right hon. Friend sees no need to change the present procedures. Proposals to close village schools, like proposals for all schools, are decided on their merits, having regard to all the relevant factors involved.

Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware of the deep concern about the closure of village schools? Does he think that publishing guidelines about the size of schools, distances of alternative schools, travelling conditions and so on would be helpful in reassuring the public?

Mr. Dunn: We have made such details known from time to time, in particular in a recent Adjournment debate, of which I shall send my hon. Friend a copy. There may be good and special reasons for keeping a small school open. When that is so, my right hon. Friend decides

accordingly. When such reasons do not exist, it is not sensible to devote scarce education resources to keeping such places in use because that diverts resources from better uses, perhaps for a school in another village.

Mr. Penhaligon: Is the Minister aware that in my area the county council, district councils, parish councils, Members of Parliament and the villages concerned do not want to close schools? Why is the Minister receiving applications to close them?

Mr. Dunn: Applications are made on the ground that existing financial resources can be better used elsewhere. I am always ready to see any hon. Member with a deputation relating to a section 12 proposal, including the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Lord: Can my hon. Friend confirm that when a local education authority is considering closing a small village school it is vital that it explains carefully whether it is closing that school for educational or for financial reasons, and that it does not confuse the two?

Mr. Dunn: I agree that it is incumbent upon local education authorities to give as much information as possible about why it is proposed to close a school.

Higher Education (Parental Contributions)

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what additional number of families is expected to be deemed to be paying parental contributions for higher education in 1984–85 over 1983–84, allowing for an average increase of incomes in line with Government forecasts.

Mr. Brooke: The adjustment of the parental contribution scale in line with the average increase in earnings should ensure that there will be no significant overall increase in the number of families assessed for a contribution in 1984–85, although there will he some additional families simply because of higher student numbers.

Mr. Marlow: Can my hon. Friend please give the House the date by which the party of the family will do away with this pernicious tax on families?

Mr. Brooke: I am aware of the many arguments that can be advanced for the abolition of the parental contribution system, but it is estimated that the cost of abolishing the system in 1984–85 would be about £250 million and resources are simply not available for that at present.

Mr. Rhodes James: I thank my hon. Friend for making the scale of contributions rather more equitable. Is he aware that I, like him in happier times, regret the parental contribution principle, and particularly regret the fact that over the next three years an additional £90 million will be taken from the parents of students? Will he at least consider the possibility of moving the beginning rate from £9,700 to a higher level of income, perhaps £12,000?

Mr. Brooke: Now that we have announced the scales for next year, my hon. Friend's suggestion must be for another year. Of course, we keep the matter permanently under review.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that until his announcement this autumn about student grants


there was almost a political consensus that we should treat students as independent? The only problem was how soon we could do that. Is he aware that it seems that the Government have reversed that policy and are saying that students from 18 to 25 should be more and more dependent on their parents? Is that not regrettable?

Mr. Brooke: The Government needed to find savings within the education budget. It was felt that this was the way least damaging to higher education provision.

Free School Transport

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received concerning the provision of free school transport.

Mr. Dunn: Representations are regularly received from hon. Members and parents about free school transport. These typically take the form of complaints that a local education authority has withdrawn free transport, or does not provide it, in particular cases. In addition, a number of hon. Members, local authorities and parents have argued that the Government should seek to change the law.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does my hon. Friend recall the representations that I made on behalf of my constituents in Theydon Bois, who resent the fact that pupils just outside a 3-mile limit do not have free transport while those inside the limit do? Despite the early difficulties, will he consider recommending to local education authorities a small flat-rate scheme, or something similar?

Mr. Dunn: We are always prepared to consider any suggestion. The House will recall that in 1979 we attempted to make a change in the 1944 Act to allow local education authorities to introduce a charge for pupils, while enabling them to provide transport more generously. That move was defeated in the House of Lords and we have no plans to make further changes.

Mr. Barron: Does the Minister realise that in areas such as south Yorkshire the passenger transport service is able to provide for hundreds of school children a 2p fare to school whether they live within 3 miles of, or more than 3 miles from, a particular school? Does he recognise the threat which the service faces because of the policies of some of his hon. Friends?

Mr. Dunn: The House will be aware of the implications for jobs of such subsidies. Local education authorities have the right to decide how they provide transport and under what conditions. We do not intend to deviate from that.

Youth Training Scheme (Further Education Colleges)

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next plans to meet local education authority representatives to discuss the future role of colleges of further education in the youth training scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Keith Joseph: I have no immediate plans to do so but the Department has regular opportunities to discuss the youth training scheme with representatives of local education authorities.

Mr. Madel: Before the next scheme begins in September next year, will my right hon. Friend have a close look at the content of the courses offered at colleges of further education in relation to the youth training scheme? If it seems likely that many young people, when they have completed youth training, will want to go back to some form of further education, will the Government have a close look and see what form of financial support might be granted to such students?

Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, but I think my hon. Friend is aware that there is already a 21-hour rule which enables those seeking employment to do some study while they are seeking jobs.

Mr. Nellist: Does the Secretary of State agree with his hon. Friend's question on the need for youngsters, on completing a youth training scheme course, to consider going back to further education, as only 38 per cent. of those completing the schemes get jobs? As the schemes are not designed to create jobs that is the only option, other than going back on the dole.

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman may have observed that there appears to be an increase—I do not want to exaggerate; a modest increase—in the number of jobs available to people of that age.

Mr. Freud: Does the Secretary of State accept that colleges of further education are facing bankruptcy because of the low take-up of the youth training schemes? Will he introduce legislation to ensure their future?

Sir Keith Joseph: The position of different colleges of further education in relation to youth training schemes varies very much, but the terms on which they are paid for their provision of youth training will be open to renegotiation in the new year.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Secretary of State discuss with the local education authorities when he meets them the problem of recognising a year on YTS as a qualification for going on to further education in colleges of higher education, as this is disturbing many people? Is he aware that it is not clear whether a year on YTS is a qualification to pursue anything afterwards?

Sir Keith Joseph: I do not see that the scheme can conceivably provide in itself a qualification for higher education, but there are many courses of further education which are open to those leaving YTS, as for others, with financial conditions which vary according to the circumstances of the individual.

Students (Unemployment Benefit)

Mr. Colvin: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the findings of the recent report published by Youthaid about students who receive unemployment benefit.

Sir Keith Joseph: The report gives a useful indication of use of the 21-hour rule in further education colleges and schools and proposes ways of improving access to education for the unemployed. I shall shortly be discussing these recommendations with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services.

Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 21-hour provision will be extremely useful for young


people coming off the YTS? What is his Department doing to persuade those colleges which do not offer the 21-hour scheme to do so?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with my hon. Friend. It will be a useful option for those concerned while seeking jobs, particularly as the qualification of three months' unemployment has been removed by the DHSS. As for the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I shall consider what ways are open to us.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Christmas 25 per cent. of teenagers will he on the dole and that many of them would very much like to pursue courses of education rather than merely signing on to the dole queue? Will he admit that the interface between availability of work, eligibility for benefit and the ability to qualify for the youth training scheme is in a complete mess and is understood by neither DHSS managers nor local education authorities? The result is that many young men and women who would like to pursue education while waiting for a job are not able to do so.

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman carefully limited his remarks to teenagers and avoided accepting that, thanks to the work of the MSC and employers, there are very few 16-year-olds, as a proportion of that vintage, on the dole. The 21-hour rule is an extremely useful option for those who wish to undertake some part-time study while awaiting employment.

Youth and Community Services (Thompson Report)

Mr. Watson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will introduce legislation on the lines suggested by the Thompson report on youth and community services.

Mr. Brooke: This recommendation is under consideration and the Government's decision will be announced as soon as possible.

Mr. Watson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he be slightly more specific about the date of the announcement? It is over 20 years since people first started talking about a statutory basis for the youth service and there has been no progress since then.

Mr. Brooke: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in a written answer on 1 November, we are currently examining relevant material in the recently completed report on the National Youth Bureau, which has a bearing on, for example, the recommendation in the review group's report on the youth service for a national advisory council. My hope and expectation is that our response to the review group's recommendations in total will be announced well before Easter.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that youth clubs throughout the United Kingdom operate in difficult financial circumstances, suffer great hardship and have to survive from week to week? Does he accept that he has a duty to the country and to young people nationally to ensure that enough moneys are made available to secure the future of the clubs, especially as they ensure that many young people are taken off the streets, where they could engage in anti-social activities?

Mr. Brooke: I am happy to pay tribute to the youth service throughout the country. Total expenditure on the

youth service amounted to about £93 million in 1981–82. The Government's plans for local authority expenditure in 1984–85 should enable the great majority of local education authorities in aggregate to maintain the 1981–82 level of provision provided that costs, especially pay, are contained and resources are managed effectively.

Adult and Continuing Education.

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on future Government policy for adult and continuing education.

Mr. Brooke: In consultation with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend has carefully considered how future developments in this important field should be promoted. He has decided not to set up a national development council. Discussions are taking place with the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education and the local authority associations about the role that the institute might play in these circumstances.

Mr. Dormand: In view of the Government's pathetic record on adult and continuing education, is not the Minister's decision not to set up a development council for continuing education a clear sign that the Government have no interest in his important area? Does he agree that without such a council adult and continuing education will become virtually meaningless in the future?

Mr. Brooke: We see no prospect of funds being available to support a national development council on the scale envisaged by ACACE in the foreseeable future. We would not have been convinced of the case for channelling all central development funds into a single body even in a more favourable financial climate, bearing in mind the existence of other bodies which have a valuable contribution to make in this area and the proven success of single-purpose initiatives using existing or specially created agencies such as PICKUP and ALBSU.

Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm the great value of adult education in furthering people's careers by giving them retraining? Is he aware that special courses give self-dignity to the unemployed while other courses give meaning to life for the elderly and others in the community? Will he do all that he can to restore adult education to the forefront of our education system?

Mr. Brooke: Historians of the adult education movement paid tribute to the role of Baliol college, Oxford, at the turn of the century, in setting adult education on its way. As a loyal son of that house, I am delighted to be as supportive 80 years later.

Mr. Pavitt: In order to help a small and specialised area of adult education, could the Secretary of State set up a working party with the Department of Health and Social Security to consider the question of lip-reading classes for the deaf? Because of the demographic situation there is an increasing demand for that service, but because of the public expenditure cuts it is difficult to meet it.

Mr. Brooke: I will, of course, bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind and consult my colleagues in the other Department.

Mr. Foster: Is the Minister aware that the tremendous amount of unemployment means that the Minister's


Department has a duty to make a response, particularly since many hon. Members feel that the Department opted out of the youth training scheme? Adult unemployment gives us an opportunity to give special weight to the adult education movement, but the Department is failing completely.

Mr. Brooke: We are actively considering possible ways and means of encouraging the development of suitable provision to meet the education needs of unemployed adults. I cannot say more at present. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of a statement on adult training issued by the Manpower Services Commission last month, which fully acknowledged the need for constructive partnership and co-operation between the MSC and the education service. Useful discussions have taken place between officials of the Department and of the MSC on issues of common concern.

School Places (Reductions)

Mr. Tracey: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many proposals under section 15 of the Education Act 1980 he has received; how many he has approved; and how many he has rejected.

Mr. Dunn: Since the 1980 Act came into effect, 103 section 15 proposals have been published but five were subsequently withdrawn by the proposers. My right hon. Friend and his predecessor have approved 33 and rejected four such proposals, and approved part and rejected part of one further proposal. In the absence of any statutory objections, local education authorities have determined to implement a further 33 such proposals. Twenty-seven section 15 proposals are still current.

Mr. Tracey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. However, is he aware that some education authorities are artificially reducing the intake of some popular schools, thus acting against parental preference? Will he take steps to prevent such artificial reductions, as it is contrary to the spirit of the 1980 Act to limit the intake of popular schools below their physical capacity?

Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend is quite right. Some local education authorities are abusing the spirit of section 15 of the Act. I am concerned about that abuse, and I can assure the House that the matter is under review.

Mr. Radice: The record of the Tory Government since 1979 in closing down a quarter of the grammar schools is now nearly as good as the record of the Prime Minister, when the right hon. Lady was Secretary of State. She closed down a third of all the grammar schools. Why cannot the Government admit that most parents — including Conservative parents in Richmond and Solihull — reject the 11-plus, reject selection, and reject grammar schools and secondary moderns?

Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman is making a bogus point and attempting to cover up the difference between the Government and the Opposition, which is that we would allow local education authorities the right to decide the nature and variety of secondary education organisation in their communities. In 1976 the Labour Government took away that right, with the support of the Liberal party.

Students (Travel Costs)

Mr. Eastham: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is yet in a position to make an announcement about his proposals regarding the future of the system of reimbursing students' travel costs.

Mr. Brooke: No, Sir.

Mr. Eastham: If, at some future date, the Minister makes a proposal to the House about changing the scheme will he ensure that there is no oversimplification for administrative purposes which may be expensive for the student? Usually, whenever a change is made to any scheme, it is the recipients who suffer.

Mr. Brooke: Details of new travel arrangements will be announced as soon as they have been settled after consultation with the National Union of Students. Any change that achieves a worthwhile simplification of the present arrangements will inevitably involve an element of rough justice.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will not many students be alarmed by those proposals? Does the Minister agree that that "rough justice" could well penalise those students who live at home and travel considerable distances to colleges and universities?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman's point will be taken into account by the Government in formulating their arrangements.

Further Education (Allowances)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much it would cost to provide an allowance for every person in post compulsory non-advanced education in schools and colleges at the rate of £30 per term-time week.

Sir Keith Joseph: About £700 million for England and Wales, assuming that the allowance was restricted to 16 to 19-year-olds in full-time education and there were savings on child benefit.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State agree that income support for teenagers is completely chaotic and that there should be some rationalisation so that people can remain at school and colleges to benefit from education rather than be forced to go through devices such as the 21-hour rule, which often gives income support but not the best education benefits?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am sure that there could be some tidying up. but it would involve a great deal of extra money. There is no evidence that young people are leaving school to join the YTS solely because there is no allowance for staying on at school.

Mr. Madel: Would it not help if there could be considerable flexibility on the 21-hour rule in relation to certain technical and accredited courses?

Sir Keith Joseph: The 21-hour rule is largely the province of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The Government are anxious that the 21-hour rule should not become a substitute for a student support service. I shall discuss my hon. Friend's point with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Flannery: Does not the system compel young people who want to stay at school—many of whom show their sincerity by staying, in face of other


inducements — to leave school? Was not the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) an attempt to obtain enough money to allow our young people to continue at school as long as they wish and educate them to our greater benefit?

Sir Keith Joseph: I repeat that there is no evidence that the youth training allowance, as opposed to the youth training scheme, has been a factor in moving young people from school to the youth training scheme.

Degree Course Places

Mr. Bowen Wells: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many degree course places at universities and polytechnics were available in 1982–83; what this represents as a percentage of the relevant age group of young people; how this compares with previous years; and what is the expected figure for 1989–90.

Mr. Brooke: It is 137,000 or about 11·3 per cent. of the age group. About 13·4 per cent. of the age group were involved in higher education of all kinds in 1982–83, the highest level since 1975. Demand for higher education is projected to come from 13·8 to 14·8 per cent. of the age group by 1989–90.

Mr. Wells: Does that not mean that the Government have provided more places at degree level in polytechnics and universities, and that those polytechnics and universities have a responsibility to provide relevant courses with a vocational element for those students?

Mr. Brooke: Last year there were 51,000 more full-time home students in higher education than in 1979. I dare say that the figure will have risen further when we have this year's intake figures. In answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, there is a shift towards vocational subjects in universities and polytechnics in the way that he mentioned.

Pupil Numbers

Mr. Powley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many pupils there were in maintained secondary schools in 1982–83; what was the figure for 1979–80; and what is the expected figure for 1986–87.

Mr. Dunn: There were 3·74 million pupils in maintained secondary schools in England in January 1983, and 3·87 million pupils in January 1980. The projected number of pupils in maintained secondary schools in England is 3·3 million in 1986–87.

Mr. Powley: I thank my hon. Friend for that informative answer. Does he agree that, while it is regrettable that any secondary school has to close, there comes a point when the numbers in a secondary school fall below a certain level when it is not viable to provide a broad curriculum? Does he further agree that it is to the benefit of future pupils to be educated in a school large enough to provide the wide range of facilities that our children's education needs?

Mr. Dunn: That point is continuously before us when we decide a section 12 proposal. The House must accept that there are limits to what the country can afford to spend on education. What we spend must be spent constructively and not wasted on keeping open empty classrooms and buildings.

Teachers (Dismissal)

Mr. Andrew MacKay: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the procedure for dismissing teachers.

Sir Keith Joseph: Procedures for the dismissal of teachers are a matter for local education authorities and other employers. They should be used whenever it is necessary in the best interests of pupils.

Mr. MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we shall improve the standards of education in schools only if it is easier for authorities to dismiss that minority of teachers who are inefficient and incompetent?

Sir Keith Joseph: It is possible, even though laborious, for that to be done now. I must simultaneously pay tribute to the majority of teachers who do a good job.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Colvin: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 20 December.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to endorse the line taken by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland regarding Americans' attitudes to the activities of Noraid, the fund-raising organisation in the United States, for the IRA? Does she agree that the tragic death on Saturday at the hands of the IRA terrorists of a United States citizen and the injuring of two others might bring home to the American people the fact that money given to Noraid does not go to help widows and orphans, but goes to create them?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and agree with what he says. We condemn very strongly as, indeed, does the President, money given to Noraid. It is given to those who reject democracy and pursue their ends by violence and the death and destruction of innocent people. It has also, possibly on this occasion, resulted in the death of one American citizen and the injury of others as well as those of other nationalities.

Mr. Kinnock: As well as endorsing the views expressed on American television yesterday by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I am sure that the whole House will want to commend the helpful and forthright response of Dr. Garrett FitzGerald and, indeed, the positive statements of the American ambassador on Saturday's atrocity. Could the Prime Minister tell us what consideration has been given to increasing formal joint efforts between Governments to block off the flow of munitions and money to terrorists, wherever such resources come from?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Dr. Garrett FitzGerald was very sympathetic and sent a sympathetic message. Likewise, we were able to congratulate him on the tremendous efforts that were made in the Republic to secure the release of Mr. Tidey.


I know that that resulted in the death of two of their security guards. Co-operation is very close between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland in trying to block off munitions or, if they get over, in trying to find them. Indeed, the destruction caused in the Republic of Ireland by the activities of the IRA is very damaging indeed to the Republic and we therefore cooperate on these matters to the maximum extent. I also join the right hon. Gentleman in being very grateful for what the American ambassador said when he came to see me last evening.

Mrs. Currie: May I turn my right hon. Friend's attention to another important question and ask if she will find time today to study the remarks of Judge Gibbens in the High Court on Friday and yesterday in which he expressed sympathy for a man who had unlawful intercourse with a 7-year-old girl and described it as an accident. Does she agree with me, as the mother of a 7-year-old girl, that the judge's remarks were disgraceful?

The Prime Minister: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend. The Government regard with very great seriousness all sexual offences against children, and I cannot emphasise that too strongly. As my hon. Friend will know, the Lord Chancellor has called for a transcript of the proceedings so that he may first find the facts, which I believe is the proper course to take.

Mr. Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that millions of her fellow citizens will, this Christmas, be contemplating the new year with some dread in view of her overruling of the Secretary of State for Energy on electricity prices. coupled with the Government's cuts in housing benefit? Does she begin to understand their anxieties?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend answered questions very forcefully yesterday and pointed out that, as electricity prices had been frozen for two years, the possibility being considered might mean an increase of 2 per cent. over what would turn out to be the course of two years, whereas the Government whom the right hon. Gentleman supported, and whose life that support extended, had an increase in electricity prices of 2 per cent. every six weeks.

Mr. Conway: Bearing in mind that 490 people were convicted last year of sexual assaults on children, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is growing public concern at the leniency of sentences passed on such attackers, such as the one passed yesterday on the attacker of a 7-year-old child?

The Prime Minister: Within the statutory limits for sentencing that are laid down—and the statutory limits usually allow for very severe sentences — the precise sentence that is given is a matter for the judge. However, as my hon. Friend will be aware, the Government intend to introduce legislation that would subject a sentence alleged to have been too lenient to the scrutiny of the Court of Appeal. While that court could not then overrule that particular sentence, what it said might be a guide for future sentences.

Mr. Hume: Will the Prime Minister dampen down the hysteria in this country about Irish-American support for violence in Northern Ireland by recognising that the vast majority of Irish-Americans, of whom there are 44 million, do not support violence in Northern Ireland and that opposition to it is forcefully, strongly and

constructively expressed by their political leaders, such as Speaker O'Neill, Senator Kennedy and Senator Moynihan?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the overwhelming majority of the American people, including those in the Government and in prominent positions—indeed, I think all in the Government and in prominent positions—and the Irish, condemn violence as a means of pursuing political ends. Violence is the negation of democracy and we pursue democracy. They have the chance of pursuing these things through the ballot box. We hope that one day they will take that course and reject the path of violence.

Mr. Alex Carlile: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Carlile: In the light of the recent crash of the first ground-based cruise missile to be tested operationally. what new steps do the Government propose to take to secure at least equal control of these very unreliable weapons?

The Prime Minister: The cruise missiles are not yet fully operational and will not be fully operational until the end of December, because that is the time appointed by the agreement with NATO. With regard to the control of these missiles, that is governed by agreements that have been satisfactory to all previous Prime Ministers, including the one whom the hon. Gentleman's party supported when it was able to do so.

Mr. Rathbone: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the liaison between the Law Officers and the Minister with responsibility for consumer protection on the House Buyers Bill?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that I am well served by the Minister with responsibility for consumer protection and by the Law Officers. I had hoped to be asked about that matter last Thursday, but unfortunately the questions that one expects and hopes for do not always come. Perhaps I might make it perfectly clear by saying now what I would have said then—it might have been better had I been asked the question then. but that is how it goes—that the Government have decided to introduce a Bill to enable solicitors employed by institutions such as building societies and banks also to convey houses. That goes for all kinds of conveyancing, not just properties that are on registered land.
With regard to registered land. the Government are consulting to extend the rights of conveyancing to others, if that can be done safely. I am grateful to have had the opportunity of referring to these matters.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 20 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Forsyth: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government's rate-capping policies have proved an enormous success in Scotland in practice? Does she agree that they have brought widespread relief to people, such as my constituents, who are living under the


yoke of Marxist councils? Does she further agree that it is high time that these benefits were brought to ratepayers in England and Wales as a whole?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Many ratepayers have been grateful for the action of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, which he can take under Scottish law, especially the many businesses for whom rates are the largest tax. We shall be pleased, and many industries and most ratepayers will be delighted, when the rate-capping legislation is passed for England and Wales.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Prime Minister aware of the impending industrial catastrophe and human tragedy in the west of Scotland with the possible closure of the Scott Lithgow yard? Will she hold negotiations to establish whether the contract can be renegotiated, otherwise the west of Scotland will suffer a tremendous disaster? Bearing in mind the money spent on nuclear weapons, it would be only a drop in the ocean to save those jobs.

The Prime Minister: There will be a statement about the contract at Scott Lithgow after Question Time. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that competition for both ships and oil rigs is very great indeed. Employment can be provided only by keeping customers, which means building ships or oil rigs to budget and on time. I very much regret to say that the record of that yard is abysmal. The yard has two other orders—a ship for the Ministry of Defence and another oil rig. British Shipbuilders will be considering how best to complete those orders in the light of the difficulties that it may face in any negotiations about the original rig.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Prime Minister not listen to the eccentric and unrepresentative views of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) on the Government's Scottish legislation on rates? Does she recognise that, whatever criticisms there may be of spendthrift Labour authorities, there is no support whatever for the Government's interference with local democracy and the removal of all decision-making from local government?

The Prime Minister: Local democracy has those powers that are conferred upon it by Parliament. Bearing in mind that the Government have the final responsibility for the level of public expenditure, for many years there was a convention that local authorities in general followed the wishes of Government about the total level of

expenditure locally. That convention has broken down and differences have to be introduced. Many ratepayers, indeed I believe the overwhelming majority, will be very pleased with the rate-capping legislation because they believe that rates are far too high. There would have been no increase in rates this year if the 18 Labour over-spenders had spent to target instead of above it.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: asked the Prime Minister is she will list her official engagements for 20 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Has not Britain kept to the NATO agreement to increase defence expenditure by 3 per cent. a year in real terms? Does that not mean that we are spending more than any other NATO country, except the United States? As no other European ally has stuck to the NATO targets, does my right hon. Friend think that we are now bearing too heavy a share of the burden, especially as the defence of the Falklands is not included in the defence budget for that purpose?

The Prime Minister: We are committed to increasing NATO expenditure by 3 per cent. per annum to the year 1985–86. We are not committed beyond that, and we are considering what level of expenditure we shall have beyond that date. I agree that we are spending a higher percentage of GDP than our allies in NATO, but the distribution of expenditure over the years has been different. Some of those who are not reaching the 3 per cent. increase in expenditure spent a great deal more during the years before that commitment was made, and I refer especially to the Federal Republic of Germany.

Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I did not attempt to catch your eye during Prime Minister's Question Time, and while I accept that you have a reaponsibility to defend and look after the interests of minority parties, may I ask you to consider whether you were right, when calling six Members from the Opposition Benches, to call five from minority parties and only one from the Labour party?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has correctly stated that it is my duty and responsibility to protect the rights of minorities, and to do so over the general pattern of Question Time throughout the month—

Mr. Nellist: What about us?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been called three times. I bear my duties very much in mind.

Rate Support Grant (Wales)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Welsh rate support grant settlement for 1984–85.
I have today announced to the Welsh consultative council on local government finance the details of the 1984–85 rate support grant settlement. Copies of the text of my statement to the consultative council have been placed in the Library of the House. The rate support grant report will be laid before the House after the recess and will be debated in the usual way.
The main features of the 1984–85 settlement confirm the intentions I announced in November. They must be seen in the context of the Government's continuing commitment to secure reductions in public expenditure. The total of relevant expenditure provision accepted for grants is £1,440 million. That comprises £1,253 million for current expenditure and £187 million for non-current items. Aggregate Exchequer grant will be £996 million, consisting of £138·8 million for specific grants, £31 million for transport supplementary grant, £1·9 million for national parks supplementary grant and £824·3 million for the rate support grants. Domestic rate relief is unchanged at 18·5p in the pound, which costs £25·3 million, leaving £799 million for distribution as block grant.
The settlement is a fair one. Current expenditure provision, after allowing for the 1·5 per cent. reduction in authorities' national insurance surcharge from next April and the way in which housing benefit administration costs are now counted for rate support grant purposes, is £57 million or 4·8 per cent. more than the provision underlying the 1983–84 settlement.
Aggregate Exchequer grant at £996 million is £21 million or 2–2 per cent. more than the aggregate Exchequer grant provision in the main rate support grant settlement for the current year. Even more important for rating purposes, it is £36 million or 3·8 per cent. higher than the amount authorities have included in their budgets for the present year.
As in the present year and the preceding one I have set individual authority expenditure targets. Experience has shown that these are helpful to authorities in providing a degree of certainty of grant entitlement for spending at target and clearly exert a significant influence on expenditure decisions. In the light of the views expressed by the two Welsh local authority associations I have retained the same method for determining next year's expenditure targets as that used in the current year. This enables me to withhold grant in an equitable way by ensuring that the amount of grant withheld from an authority is directly related to its own overspending and not to the expenditure decisions of other authorities.
The targets I have set are very tough for some authorities—but are reasonable for all. Every authority's target gives a cash increase in its current expenditure: the minimum increase is 1·5 per cent. and the maximum 6 per cent., after making allowance for the reduction in the national insurance surcharge next year and a modest amount of budget drift.
The grant withholding penalty for spending in excess of targets has been strengthened. As in the present year, the amount of grant withheld for excess expenditure up to

1 per cent. above target is 40 per cent. of that excess, but above that level the rate of holdback increases progressively with a maximum rate of 90 per cent. for authorities spending 5 per cent. or more above target: this compares with a maximum rate of grant withholding in the current year of 75 per cent. at 6 per cent. spending above target. I am retaining the grant protection arrangements already adopted whereby any authority spending at or below target will be exempted from both grant holdback and close-ending. Similarly, the limitation of grant holdback for low rateable resource authorities set in the present year will be retained for 1984–85.
Block grant will be distributed in accordance with the grant-related expenditure formulae agreed by the Welsh local authority associations. I have decided to retain the existing block grant mechanisms which determine the distribution of block grant before holdback and the same safety net for limiting grant losses associated with changes in GRE—a maximum 4p loss at the county level and 1p loss at the district level.
There is a continuing need for restraint in local government expenditure. Some progress has been made on this front, but there is still some way to go. Since 1978–79 local government current expenditure in Wales has risen by about 2 per cent. more than the increase in costs for the economy as a whole. We must reverse this trend. The realistic increases in expenditure provision and aggregate Exchequer grant for 1984–85 should enable authorities to maintain reasonable service standards provided pay settlements are kept down and authorities continue and reinforce their efforts to secure greater efficiency and economy and better value for money. In this respect I note that the latest joint manpower watch figures, which are being released today, confirm that staff numbers in Wales have risen by about 1,000 over the 12 months to last September. This alone must have cost ratepayers about £15 million in the current year, after making allowance for the effect of grant holdback. Clearly, if authorities are to meet their targets for next year, this growth of manpower must be reversed. I appreciate, of course, that authorities have difficult choices of priority to make but that applies in all areas of public expenditure, including my own programmes.
What happens to rates next year will, of course, depend on the decisions of authorities themselves. Here I will simply make two points. Authorities can on average increase their net revenue expenditure next year by nearly 4 per cent. and still spend in line with targets. If authorities spend at this level and apply only half of the balances they have applied in the present year, rate increases will average only 1 per cent. Indeed, rates could fall if authorities applied balances to the same extent as in the current year.
These figures are a very far cry from some of those which have been bandied about — for example, the average rate increase of 17 per cent. reported in the press. I regard that figure as wildly exaggerated and simply do not believe it. It would imply about a 7 per cent. increase in net revenue expenditure, which I am sure authorities in general will not seek to impose on their ratepayers. Furthermore, rates this year on average rose by less than 1 per cent. despite earlier local authority forecasts—and forecasts by Opposition Members — that average rate levels in Wales would be into double figures.
I conclude by repeating that the settlement is fair and reasonable. I am confident that local authorities, like the


Government, want to keep rate increases down to the absolute minimum. Low rate increases benefit all sectors of the community: industry, commerce and domestic ratepayers alike. It is now for each local authority to take its own spending decisions in the light of the settlement provision and of the effect of its decisions on ratepayers as a whole.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many leading local authority members question the value of the Consultative Council when, as in this authoritarian statement, he seems to take little account of any of its recommendations, which have been brushed aside in haughty ministerial style? Does he agree that the level of relevant expenditure contains a miserably inadequate allowance for both inflation and the ever-increasing demand for services as it is only 4 per cent. higher than the figure for the current year and a paltry 2–75 per cent. higher than the authorities' budgets for the current year? Having set a grimly unrealistic expenditure level, has he not also increased the problems of local authorities and their ratepayers by reducing the rate of grant, thus in a single act pushing rate bills 4 per cent. higher than they would otherwise be?
On penalties and targets, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is a flagrant injustice to impose even more impossible targets and even tougher penalties on authorities which cannot cut priority services and which have genuinely tried to restrain expenditure? How can local elections ever again have real meaning? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the cumulative effects of the settlement will guarantee substantial average rate increases and that unless authorities cut their services significantly and/or take large sums from working balances, average increases may rise well into double figures?
This is a black day for local government in Wales. The settlement and the new Bill show that the freedoms of local government are at risk and that the Government are advancing towards bureaucratic dictatorship, forcing dedicated councillors to be the executioners of their own services. Increasingly there is a flavour of the colonial governor about the Secretary of State. That style is not appreciated in Wales.

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman's predecessor, speaking from the Dispatch Box on the same occasion last year, made exactly the same forecast of double figure rate increases. In fact, rate increases in Wales have averaged less than 1 per cent. I believe that the hon. Gentleman's exaggerated claims this year will prove equally unfounded. Increases of 17 per cent. would mean that local authorities were increasing spending by about 7 per cent. —well above any likely rate of inflation—and making no use of balances. Balances are currently about £100 million. It is therefore absurd to suggest that local authorities will do any such thing.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the value of the consultative council. I realise that local authorities would like a larger share of resources provided by the taxpayer, but the Government and the House are responsible for the totality of public spending, for the very large sums of general tax revenue given to the local authorities and for the interests of ratepayers, many of whom cannot effectively protect themselves at local level from the rate increases imposed on them.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the adequacy of the relevant expenditure provision. As I said in my statement, the amount counting for rate support grant purposes is 4·8 per cent. more than the provision underlying the 1983–84 settlement and is nearly 4 per cent. more than the estimated outturn. It is absurd to pretend that that imposes impossible targets.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned penalties and said that they were impossible. That is exactly what was said last year, yet 32 out of the 45 authorities achieved. without penalty, the targets which I set. It is in the interests of industry, ratepayers and the economy in general that local authority expenditure is kept within reasonable limits. I am confident that Welsh local authorities will be able to provide a high level of services within the expenditure figures that I have announced.

Mr. Tom Hooson: My right hon. Friend's announcement of cash increases for every Welsh local authority will be most welcome. However. among rural authorities there will be some disappointment that we shall have a third year with the same GRE basis for the allocation of grant. Is it not time, as we approach the fourth year, that there was consultation between the Welsh Office and Welsh local authorities on a review of that grant as there are factors such as sparsity which are inadequately reflected in the present formula?

Mr. Edwards: I suspect that it will be suggested later that the interests of areas of heavy population are inadequately represented. I was specifically asked to maintain the same system this year but I have already agreed with local authorities to enter discussions about the formula that we shall use next year. We continue to keep in close touch with local authorities and to discuss these matters and will do so in the coming year.

Mr. Donald Coleman: The right lion. Gentleman said that rates in Wales increased by only 1 per cent. last year. What, therefore, is the reason for the draconian measures that he has announced today? Why do we have this announcement year after year, and why is he continuing to try to continue to destroy local democracy?

Mr. Edwards: Welsh local authorities spent £27 million above the provision which was made last year. We have made it absolutely clear that the Government must set the total level of expenditure by local authorities in the national interest and in consideration of our economic objectives. In setting the targets, we are trying to constrain the totality of local government spending.

Mr. Keith Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is considerable scope for overspending authorities to make the necessary economies without cutting services? Will he continue to highlight authorities that have excessive manning levels so that authorities such as Clywd do not get away with cosmetic reductions in manpower such as those of the past five years during which time it has reduced full-time staff by 235 while increasing part-time staff by 461, twice as many?

Mr. Edwards: I am as worried as my hon. Friend about the increase in local authority manpower in the past 12 months. It is nonsense to suggest that it is impossible to maintain all services if, at the same time, local authorities — especially the Welsh counties — increase manpower as they have done. The Audit Commission recently made some interesting comments about the scope


for saving and improving efficiency in local government. I do not believe that anyone who knows local government, which is a substantial employer, believes that it is not possible to achieve more improvements in efficiency.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Secretary of State admit that beneath the myriad of figures that he has just announced he is really shifting the buck again from the central Exchequer to the local exchequer? Does he agree that rate-borne expenditure will increase from 29·6 per cent. to 31 per cent. of total expenditure, whereas centrally borne expenditure will decrease from 70·4 per cent. to 69 per cent.? Does he agree that that will inevitably entail at least a 5 per cent. increase in rates before anything else starts?
Will he confirm that the GRE for Wales is close to the target for Wales but that there are many authorities for which the target is substantially lower than the GRE? For those areas, will he consider ensuring that clawback is not used unless those authorities overspend their GREs and not simply their targets?

Mr. Edwards: The suggestion is always made that, if we reduce the level of central Government contribution, rates will go up substantially—the hon. Gentleman used the figure of 4 or 5 per cent. The same thing was said last year when we cut the grant level by 2 per cent., but rates went up by under 1 per cent. It does not follow that a reduction of RSG such as we have made will produce the rate increases that he and the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) suggested. There is still room for other switches and improvements in efficiency. As I said in my statement, those authorities which do not exceed their targets will not be liable to clawback and penalty.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), who presumably had some advance notice of this statement, was unable to do anything but flounder feebly, and for the rest of us, wishing to comment intelligently on something of great importance to Wales, it is extremely difficult to react successfully to a complex statement? None the less, will my right hon. Friend persist in his firm line in obliging local authorities to cut their expenditure to the bone? They will scream, but in the end they will comply, to the benefit of ratepayers.

Mr. Edwards: On the complexity of the RSG system and the announcement, I sympathise with my hon. Friend, but there will be a full opportunity to debate the settlement when we return in the new year. It is right that the Government should set out central economic objectives clearly and should look to local government to carry out those requirements. It is for local government to choose its own priorities and make its own decisions about what is necessary at local level within the totality of what we allow, and taking full account of the rate burdens imposed on local ratepayers.

Dr. John Marek: Will the Secretary of State do the House a service by clarifying the position so that the House is not misled? Will he accept that rates will have to go up, and if they only go up to the extent that he estimates, the result will be a cut in the services provided for the people in Wales? Will he also accept that the statement will be viewed with despair and dismay by the

people of Wales, who overwhelmingly did not vote for his party in the last general election? Is there not a logical conclusion to his centralist and Stalinist policies for local government, which is—he may well ponder on this—that he could achieve greater saving by dispensing with elected councillors altogether? Will he announce plans to do this?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman talks about rate forecasts again, but local authorities could maintain services, and, if they use their resources efficiently and their balances on a modest scale, there should be very small rate increases. That was the forecast that I made last year and it is reasonable to make it again this year. The suggestions that have been made about large rate increases are alarmist and unfounded.

Mr. Stefan Terlezki: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his announcement, and I listened carefully to its details. I find it ludicrous that there has been an increase in staff of 1,000 in the past few years, at a cost of £15 million for local authorities. Surely to God, that money could be used for much better purposes—for example for old age pensioners, schools, roads and many other facilities that need that money. What is more, it is tragic to think that out of the 45 local authorities, 32 are on target but 13 are not. Why are they not? Simply because they are bad housekeepers.

Mr. Edwards: In fairness to local authorities, some of them have tough targets, and I do not underestimate the difficult choices that have to be made. However, at a time when they are having to make difficult choices and seek improvements in efficiency, they have increased manpower over the past 12 months. There has been an increase in local government current expenditure since 1978–79 of 2 per cent. above the increase in cost for the economy as a whole. Against that background, no one can suggest that local government is being cut to the bone and that what we are asking is impossible.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Secretary of State realise that the statement will be perceived and understood in Wales in this way: first, that all authorities will face cuts in real terms; second, that poorer areas will be driven to greater and real poverty; third, that in rural areas the sparsity factor, which the Secretary of State cannot dismiss with a sneer, is being totally ignored; and fourth, that the effect of his statement will be the reduction of already declining standards in Wales to standards that will be unacceptable to many local authorities, let alone their electors?

Mr. Edwards: I do not accept any of the hon. Gentleman's statements, and I certainly did not dismiss the sparsity factor with a sneer. It is the outcome of detailed discussions with the local authority associations, which agreed through the consultative process on the factors to be taken into account and the weight to be given to them. As I said, I agreed with the local authority associations that we can look at these and other factors again. I note that during the period of this Government, a time when expenditure by local authorities has risen faster than the general increase in costs in the country as a whole, the rate increases have been vastly lower than during the period of the Labour Government, who were supported by the hon. Gentleman's party.

Mr. Brynmor John: Will the Secretary of State list the authorities that are being set the toughest targets under his rate support grant settlement? Secondly, as he thinks that the increase in local authority staffing should be reversed—he said so specifically—is he not thereby taking the initiative out of the hands of local authorities, and by how much should the staff be cut overall in Wales next year, to meet his targets?

Mr. Edwards: I have not set a specific target of manpower reductions for local authorities. I pointed out that the increase that took place during the past year probably meant an addition of £10 million or £15 million in ratepayers' costs. If local authorities say that they face difficult choices about priorities, I hope that they will try to get the manpower savings that I think are possible. The health authorities in Wales are getting an additional £2·75 million in priority services by achieving manpower reductions. If it is possible to achieve manpower reductions in the health service, it should be possible to achieve manpower reductions in local government as well.

Mr. Peter Pike: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a serious flaw in his statement and in the answers that he has given this afternoon? He said several times that one could use the balances. Surely, once the balances have been used, or they reach certain levels, one cannot keep using them year after year? So local government in Wales would be faced with only one alternative — either to cut services, or to have major increases in rates. They cannot keep using balances year after year.

Mr. Edwards: As I said, at present the balances in Wales total about £100 million, and there is probably room for some use of balances. In giving the figures, I suggested that local government might consider using balances for about half the rates that they thought appropriate in the current year. I also said that, even if they did not use

balances, the rate increases, in our view, could be comparitively low. There is a great deal of scope for local authorities to take their own decisions on these matters, and I hope that in doing so, they will consider the interests of their ratepayers, particularly their industrial ratepayers, on whom future employment prospects so much depend.

Mr. loan Evans: Does the Secretary of State realise that his statement is a further attack upon people, their services, Welsh communities and the democratic control of expenditure at local level? That is particularly so when the statement is made on the very day that the Rates Bill is published. That Bill covers Wales as well as England and comes on top of the restrictions already imposed in Wales on local authority capital spending. Is the Secretary of State aware that the cuts will hit hardest the sections of the community least able to protect themselves — the elderly, children, young people, the disabled, the unemployed and those waiting for a council house? Is he aware that local authorities have increased their manpower recently to meet the increased need?
Does the Secretary of State realise that his policy will place a greater burden on ratepayers if authorities are to maintain existing services? Does he realise that the demands on local authorities made by high unemployment, increasing poverty and deprivation caused in recent years by this Government are not met by his statement?

Mr. Edwards: I note that the hon. Gentleman has made many vague and wild generalisations. He listed some of the priorities with which local government must contend. I cannot believe shat local government will choose to make its savings on priority services. I presume that it will seek to make a judgment about which services are most important. As the Audit Commission report clearly reveals, there is plenty of scope for substantial improvements in local government efficiency.

British Shipbuilders (Britoil Contract)

Mr. Speaker: Statement, Mr. Norman Lamont.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not an insult to the House and a bigger insult to the workers of Scotland that the important statement that we are about to hear should be made by someone of less than Cabinet rank, especially since the closure could have repercussions throughout Scotland where already over 300,000 people are out of work and another 8,000 jobs are at risk?

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order? The question of who speaks from the Front Bench is not a matter for me.

Mr. Canavan: I should like you, Mr. Speaker, to use your good offices to get someone of Cabinet rank to make the statement.

Mr. Speaker: That sounds like a good Christmas demo.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): With permission, I shall make a statement about the contract between Britoil and British Shipbuilders.
In December 1981 Scott Lithgow contracted with Britoil to produce a semi-submersible drilling rig. The contract value was £88·6 million, and the contractual delivery date was April 1984. Construction began in February 1982. By March 1983, British Shipbuilders had provided for losses of £43·8 million on the rig. The then chairman, Sir Robert Atkinson, warned that performance and losses at Scott Lithgow were unacceptable.
On 31 October 1983, Britoil was sufficiently concerned about progress on the contract to issue through its agents a notice requiring Scott Lithgow to demonstrate within 30 days that the rig could be completed by February 1985. Scott Lithgow responded to Britoil by arguing that despite the undoubted delays on the contract hitherto, completion would be possible within the terms of the contract. However, on 19 December a notice of cancellation was served on behalf of Britoil on the basis that Scott Lithgow had not demonstrated that the rig could be delivered by February 1985. British Shipbuilders has responded to the cancellation notice by disputing its validity and I understand that it has now instituted legal proceedings.
While British Shipbuilders and Britoil are considering the next step in this negotiation, all work on the rig will be stopped. British Shipbuilders is instructing suppliers to suspend work on contracts relating to the rig. Up to 2,000 of the work force are involved in construction of the rig. The remainder of the work force—about 2,250 men—are employed on two other contracts: one for BP and one for the Ministry of Defence. It is British Shipbuilders' intention that these contracts will continue.
Unemployment in this area is already high and a further increase of the scale implied by the cancellation of this order would be a matter of deep concern to the Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland this morning met the Scottish TUC and told it that he would, of course, seek to do all that he can to alleviate the very real distress that would be caused in the local community. However, the offshore industry is highly competitive and customers insist upon contractors—including management and work force—delivering on

quality, price and time. Regrettably, Scott Lithgow so far appears to have been unable to satisfy Britoil that it can fulfil its obligations on this contract.

Mr. Peter Shore: That is a totally unsatisfactory statement. Surely the Minister understands that this is not the time for the Secretary of State for Scotland to be telling the Scottish TUC that he will seek to alleviate the distress caused by closure, but that it is the time for the Minister of State and the Government to call in the parties and insist upon a solution. Why has he not done that already? Surely he has known for months that the losses have been building up. Does the Minister understand that not just 2,000 jobs, but 4,250, are at risk directly if the shipyard closes, and that another 4,000 workers are directly engaged in ancillary work and contracting? We are talking about over 8,000 jobs.
Is the Minister aware that Scott Lithgow is the lead yard designated by British Shipbuilders for offshore construction and that it is building probably the most advanced semi-submersible rig that we have yet embarked upon? It is designed to operate in the deep waters of the Atlantic and is a far more sophisticated rig than has so far been operated even in the deep waters of the North sea.
Is it not absurd that the future of this yard and of this industry should be left to litigation started by one wholly-owned public corporation against another 48 per cent.-owned public corporation, while the chairman of British Shipbuilders has just departed for a three-week holiday in Canada? Will the Minister now recognise and accept his own responsibilities? Will he understand that he cannot—we will not let him— simply sit on his hands while a major new high technology industry in Scotland is allowed to collapse?

Mr. Lamont: The Government have, of course, kept in close contact with what is happening in relation to the contract. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) is right to say that we are discussing a very serious matter. We are talking about a commercial dispute between British Shipbuilders and Britoil. Both sides have taken decisions that they judge to be in their best commercial interests. If the Government were to intervene, either to urge Britoil and its agents to withdraw its notice or to urge British Shipbuilders to renegotiate the contract—which it does not wish to do—the commercial and financial position of one party or the other would be severely prejudiced. The ground would be cut from under both managements' feet. In such a situation Government intervention could only be counter-productive —[Interruption.] The Government must have regard, not just to the yard but to the wider interests of the taxpayer.
The taxpayer has funded huge losses at Scott Lithgow. [Interruption.] If the House will let me finish. On this contract the taxpayer has funded losses of nearly £44 million. A total of £66 million of the losses of £117 million that British Shipbuilders announced last year came from Scott Lithgow.
Since 1977, 8 per cent. of employment in British Shipbuilders has been accounted for by Scott Lithgow and no less than 38 per cent. of the accumulated losses of British Shipbuilders. We must have regard to the taxpayers' interests. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should put more money into Scott Lithgow. We have already put large sums into


that yard. It must be right for British Shipbuilders to do what it thinks is in its commercial interests. It thinks that it is right not to renegotiate. It thinks that it could complete the contract. That is British Shipbuilders' position.

Mr. Shore: Is the Minister saying that in his judgment it is entirely a matter for the two parties concerned and that the contract is entirely commercial? Is he saying that now, or even at the end of the present legal procedure, he does not accept that he has a separate role to look after the national interest in so far as it is involved in the future of the industry? Is he saying that he will take no action at all, now or later?

Mr. Lamont: Of course there is a national interest. The national interest is not to pour good money after bad. We must have regard for the taxpayer. British Shipbuilders has stated its position, which is that it would prefer to complete this contract. It does not wish to be forced to renegotiate the contract. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting, he is suggesting that we should encourage the company to take risks and to incur costs that it does not want to undertake. That could have a damaging effect, not only on the finances of British Shipbuilders but on other contracts on which it is at present working.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: Does the Minister appreciate the dreadful damage that will be inflicted on Inverclyde by the closure of Scott Lithgow, with the direct loss of 4,200 jobs, the loss of a possible 4,000 other jobs related to the industry, and the jobs that will go through the loss of business within the community? Will he carry out an urgent review of the procedures adopted at Scott Lithgow with a view to salvaging some of the undoubted expertise that exists at the yard? Surely the Government cannot pull the plug on an industry that has served the west of Scotland well for more than 300 years without the most thorough examination of the position. Surely the Government will not walk away from this problem.

Mr. Lamont: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. She came to see me about this matter the other day.
This matter concerns notice about the cancellation of a contract. It is not about the closure of a yard. British Shipbuilders has stated that it intends to continue the work both on the Ministry of Defence contract and on the BP contract. It is not the Government who have pulled out the plug on Scott Lithgow—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] It has been, I regret to say, the inefficiency, the poor performance, the late deliveries and the massive losses that have not just arisen this year but have gone on and on for many years. The men at Scott Lithgow have been warned about that over and over again, not least by the previous chairman of British Shipbuilders.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Minister aware that he is pushing the laissez-faire philosophy of the Government to preposterous lengths in his statement? The people of the west of Scotland are entitled to look to him for a greater sense of concern about a potential unemployment rate of 40 per cent. in the Inverclyde area and about the damage that this will do to Britain's prospects in offshore technology. Is he aware that when I visited the yard a few months ago, without making excuses for the faults in the past. I was impressed by the way in which management and shop stewards were adapting to the needs of this sophisticated and complicated

new technology and the change in working practices that that involves? There seemed to me to be a new determination in the yard to try to work towards a renegotiated contract. Will the Minister try to assist in that process?

Mr. Lamont: I do not see how it could be remotely described as "laissez-faire" to have funded losses by the yard of £140 million in addition to giving production subsidies of 17 million to Scott Lithgow through the intervention fund. This position has been growing for years and it can be no surprise—indeed, Opposition right hon. and hon. Members are not surprised, as they have been expecting this for some time. One would listen more to Opposition Members if they made some acknowledgement of the failures and faults of the yard in the past or even made mention of the intention to have industrial action on 6 January at British Shipbuilclers. What possible good can that do the yard?

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Does the Minister appreciate that it is absolutely vital for the United Kingdom to maintain a capacity in rig making and that if Scott Lithgow cannot do it perhaps a consortium of other companies could do the job for it?

Mr. Lamont: If the contract is cancelled, the rig is the property of British Shipbuilders and it would then be for British Shipbuilders to decide what would happen and whether the rig could be completed in any other way.
With regard to the general offshore capability, there are, as my hon. Friend knows, other yards in the United Kingdom, including Cammell Laird and UIE in Scotland. Other yards can construct jack-up rigs and mobile rigs.

Mr. Bruce Milan: Is it not outrageous that with a shipbuilding strike looming and now the threatened closure of Scott Lithgow, the highly paid chairman of British Shipbuilders should have gone off to Canada on an extended Christmas holiday? Should we not conclude from that that he has a mandate from the Government to close the yard? If that is not so, and if the Government deny that — they are expressing their concern—why do they not intervene now? This contract can be saved and the jobs can be saved. Indeed, it will be cheaper for the public purse at the end of the day if the contract is renegotiated. I warn the Minister that if the Government do not intervene, they will not be forgiver, in Scotland.

Mr. Lamont: The right hon. Gentleman says that it would be cheaper if the contract were renegotiated. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman can be so certain and can know what further losses will be incurred with this contract if it is proceeded with. Who is the right hon. Gentleman, even with his distinguished record, to say that his judgment is right and that of British Shipbuilders is wrong?

Mr. Barry Henderson: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to commend the skill and ability of the many other platform, ship and boat building yards throughout Scotland which are in the habit of delivering on time, to specification, and which are in danger of being guilty by association in this circumstance? Will he condemn the SNP and the Opposition who voted for the creation of this nationalised industry, British Shipbuilders, which took responsibility for Scotland away from Scotland? Does he agree that British Shipbuilders


cannot be right in trying to shrug off responsibility for Scott Lithgow's affairs, in that it failed to provide the skill and management necessary to ensure the success of the contract? Does he not feel that, even now, it should be working hard in the negotiations to ensure that something can be salvaged of the taxpayers' money and its own credibility?

Mr. Lamont: On the last point, one acknowledges that management has an important role to play. I am not placing all the blame in one quarter but it is extremely difficult to get good management to go and work in Scott Lithgow because of the yard's reputation. I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the reputation of other companies involved in the offshore industry. They manage to have a much better record and they deliver to price and to time.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is not the Minister aware that, however much he may talk about commercial considerations and competitiveness, this stand-off attitude which he has taken today to the death of an industry and of two towns is something which would not be allowed to happen in any competitive industrialised country in the world? While no doubt there are grave faults on the part of Scott Lithgow, unless he makes an effort to bring together the two parties, he will be contributing to a large further step down the road of Britain ceasing to be an industrialised country. It would be both ironic and dangerous for Britoil, perhaps temporary in its operations, to contribute to this permanent process.

Mr. Lamont: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. First, it will not be the death of an industry. Other yards are involved in the industry and the right hon. Gentleman should not assume the closure of the yard. We are talking about the cancellation of a contract.
The right hon. Gentleman used the phrase "death of an industry". Who has killed this industry? I cannot believe that in many other countries a Government could have gone on funding losses year after year as the present Government have done with Scott Lithgow.

Mr. Michael Hirst: How much of Scott Lithgow's present difficulties arise from design problems and inexperience in the specialised work involved in the Britoil contract? How much is due to the weak management and the crazy restrictive trade practices of the yard and past madness such as the Financial Times crossword strike? Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an urgent need to end restrictive trade practices in all yards of British Shipbuilders and that, in the present context, a strike next month is nothing more than suicidal madness?
Finally, does my hon. Friend agree that the bad publicity for the Clyde is terribly unfortunate at a time when other efficient and productive yards such as UIE on the upper Clyde are in the market trying to get orders?

Mr. Lamont: There have been design problems with the rig, but I cannot comment on that very much, because it is one of the factors that lies behind British Shipbuilders issuing a writ and taking action. There have been many contributory factors, including management and poor industrial relations. The position was summed up by Sir Robert Atkinson when he left BS in August. When talking about Scott Lithgow, he said:

It has a long history of losses, late deliveries, high absenteeism and a very bad industrial record.
As my hon. Friend has said, it would be utter madness to have a strike on 6 January.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Minister accept that his statement will arouse only distress and anger among my constituents, some of whom, although a declining number, are taxpayers? Will he acknowledge that it is manifest to all concerned that it is in the public interest that the rig be completed at Scott Lithgow and not in a yard in south-east Asia? Will the Government enter into an involvement with both Britoil and British Shipbuilders to intervene directly in the near future with the humane objective of ensuring that the rig is built at Scott Lithgow?

Mr. Lamont: What happens to the rig will be a matter for British Shipbuilders if there is a cancellation. If the rig is its property, it will have to decide where completion takes place. I accept that great problems and great distress will be caused to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. Many of them are workers at the yard and are among those who turned down the productivity deal that was offered by BS. They turned it down and there was no criticism of them from the Opposition, who just wanted to slip in a few more million pounds as a reward.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Cheap.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I was born in Greenock and I spent most of my life there. That being so, I know the yard inside out. It is a tragedy that we have to listen to such comments from my hon. Friend but, unfortunately, I must agree with him that the workers' lack of flexibility and the lack of proper management control and management agreements between the work force and the management has led to the disaster that could face the yard. I appeal to my hon. Friend to give an assurance that the rig will be completed at Scott Lithgow. Unless there is an agreement of that nature, the west of Scotland will be decimated. My hon. Friend must accept, as the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has said, that if the rig is built outside the United Kingdom, or the west of Scotland, it will be a major tragedy. I hope that he will give an undertaking that he will try to achieve an agreement that the rig will not leave Scott Lithgow's.

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend knows that I cannot give the assurance that he seeks for the reasons I have already given. I am, however, grateful to him for the first part of his supplementary question.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Minister realise that the history of Scott Lithgow was such that it was regarded by many in the 1960s and up to the 1970s as the jewel in the crown of Scottish shipbuilding? By and large, the yard has the same work force. The yard accepted the order but does he recognise that the yard has found it difficult to cope with the building of this advanced rig with inadequate training arrangements, with design problems and with long-distance interference from New Orleans and Newcastle? Rather than passing by on the other side and leaving the yard to die because, if one believes the remarks of the chairman of BS, it has no future, will he urge the Government to take steps to fulfil his social and economic responsibilities for the west of


Scotland by ensuring that work continues in the yard and that something is done instead of leaving the yard to rot away?

Mr. Lamont: This is not a case of passing by on the other side of the road. We have all the time been kept fully informed. We have discussed the matter with the chairman of BS and I think that he has taken the right course of action by — [HON. MEMBERS: "He has gone to Canada."]
The hon. Gentleman referred to Scott Lithgow as the jewel in the crown of British Shipbuilders. It may have been a very successful yard in the past but one cannot continue to rely on the reputation of the past. The yard's performance recently has been a bad one. Other rigs have been delivered late and have been over-priced. The BP rig is already 11 months late and a £30 million provision has had to be made for that rig as well.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend remind the Opposition, who are castigating the new chairman of British Shipbuilders, that the newly appointed chairman, Mr. Day, is the same man whom the Labour Government appointed when they nationalised the industry? Does the unhappy history of the firm bring home the reality that a firm can destroy itself even under nationalisation? It must not be allowed to bring down with it the viable members of British Shipbuilders, which is what will happen if the Government take the Opposition's advice.

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend has made two extremely good points. Mr. Day was appointed by the previous Labour Government but now that they are in opposition they are extremely critical of him. They took a different view of Mr. Day when they were in government. As my hon. Friend has said, a nationalised industry can destroy itself. Nationalisation does not insulate an industry from the disciplines of the market. It should not be a reason for pouring more and more money into a company in a vain attempt to save jobs, which will then lead to subsidised inefficiency.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Minister throw away his political spectacles and take a realistic view of the impending crisis? Will he stop apportioning blame between employers and employees and take note of the letter of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church in Scotland, which stated clearly the social consequences in Glasgow and Scotland generally if the yard were to close? If he does not do so, the people of Scotland will never forgive him.

Mr. Lamont: I am well aware of the social consequences that may stem from the cancellation of the contract. I have noted what church leaders, including those of the Roman Catholic church, have said. However, I disagree with them. I am not sure what special qualifications the leaders of the Roman Catholic church have for making such a judgment.

Mr. Hal Miller: Will my hon. Friend agree that nothing but damage would be caused if the Government were to intervene in the attempt of management to regain control and financial discipline at the yard? Is he aware that the example of the motor industry shows that if the yard and the industry are to be brought back from the brink of self-destruction, those in the industry must learn to make use of their facilities to

deliver products that are competitive in price, quality and delivery dates, and learn also that the way to higher earnings and secure employment, which everybody seeks, is through the productivity deal that is already on offer?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is quite right. By agreeing to the productivity deal, the workers in British Shipbuilders, and Scott Lithgow particularly, will have the opportunity to earn more money. My hon. Friend is right also to say that if the Government intervened in the way that Opposition Members have suggested, we would do nothing except undermine the management of BS. I agree with my hon. Friend when he compares shipbuilding with the motor industry. When one compares the progress that the motor industry has made in recent years with the lack of progress that has been made by the shipbuilding industry, there seems to be no awareness of the changes that are taking place in Britain and those that are necessary if the industry is to survive.

Mr. Hugh Brown: Does the Minister accept that the whole of Scotland will be shocked by the content and tone of his performance? Does he realise that it is appalling to have a public display of disagreement leading to legal proceedings between two bodies which are virtually publicly owned? Will he accept that the suspicion in my mind is that we are seeing another example of ideological bigotry and that the Government are getting some satisfaction from destroying the little reputation that shipbuilding on the Clyde has left?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman calls it a public display of disagreement. The two companies involved had separate commercial interests, and there is a conflict between them.

Mr. Milian: What about the public interest?

Mr. Gerald Malone: Is it not significant that when Scott Lithgow was a jewel in the crown of British Shipbuilding, it was under private management? The Labour party nationalised Scott Lithgow, and the Scottish National party connived at the nationalisation. That was the first step in bringing the yard to its present predicament.

Mr. Lamont: I agree with my hon. Friend's observation, and not only in relation to Scott Lithgow. I can think of no part of British Shipbuilders that is better off today as a result of nationalisation.

Mr. George Robertson: The Minister should look back to the early 1970s and to the last occasion on which a Conservative Government conspired to butcher shipyards — the yards on the upper Clyde. If that disastrous decision had been implemented, there would be no shipbuilding in Govan and no yard in Clydebank for the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) to prattle on about today.

Mr. Hirst: It would be under private management.

Mr. Robertson: Closing a shipyard is not just closing a business—it is butchering a whole community.

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman talks about butchering a business—

Mr. Robertson: Yes.

Mr. Lamont: Can we be said to be butchering a business into which we have put £140 million by


subsidising losses and £17 million as production subsidies to help the business to obtain orders? The hon. Gentleman's uncharacteristic outburst might have been unpersuasive if he had made even a passing reference to the responsibility of those who work in the yard for what has happened.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister has asserted that no other country has put so much money into shipyards. Has he no idea what the city of Hamburg and the federal Government have put into Blohm and Voss in terms of deutschmarks? Are we to believe that the shipyards at Bremerhaven, which looked after the boilers of the QE2 most recently, are so wonderfully efficient? Above all, can the hon. Gentleman imagine what would happen to a junior Minister in the Bundestag who talked down his own industry in such an insulting way?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman accuses me of talking down the industry.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: That is right.

Mr. Lamont: When the Opposition adopt an attitude that is wholly unrealistic and has no reference whatsoever to the shortcomings of that industry, and when in consequence I have to explain why the management of British Shipbuilders has taken a certain view, I am forced publicly to single out some of the unpleasant things that have happened in the industry.
The hon. Gentleman said that I had said that no other country puts so much money into shipyards. What I said was that no other Government would put money into shipyards making losses on such a scale. The Government cannot be accused of having failed to put money into Scott Lithgow.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Will the Minister reconsider and withdraw his slur on Scottish church leaders and on the Catholic hierarchy in particular? Does not the Minister recognise that they have an interest in the future of thousands of families in west central Scotland? Is it not a scandal that the Government appear to be abdicating responsibility for those families to the outcome of a commercial dispute between British Shipbuilders and Britoil?

Mr. James Hamilton: Apologise.

Mr. Lamont: I cast no slur whatsoever on the churchmen. I recognise their concern. I merely questioned their competence to give a judgment on a difficult commercial issue.

Mr. Dick Douglas: The Minister asserts that my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) had not weighed up the cost benefits of going on rather than stopping or frustrating the contract. Has his Department undertaken a detailed cost benefit analysis of frustrating the contract within weeks, or of going on? If the Minister has the figures, he has a public responsibility to give them to the House, because of the cost to the community on the lower Clyde. There is an order in a yard. The Government have a responsibility, in the public interest, to save that order. It is vital that they should do so. I do not dismiss the difficulties and frustrations suffered by management in the past. I am well

acquainted with those problems, both directly and indirectly. However, in the nation's interest, it is better to complete the contract. If the Minister has seen a detailed economic and financial analysis which contradicts that conclusion, he has a responsibility to put it to the House. If he has not, he must lend his weight and his assistance to the completion of the contract.

Mr. Lamont: British Shipbuilders would prefer to complete the contract. The hon. Gentleman has asked me about the alternative costs of cancellation or of the third option, renegotiation. It is difficult to quantify the costs of renegotiation, because so many uncertainties are involved. If the order was cancelled, Scott Lithgow would have to repay all the money that it has so far received—£40 million plus interest. The contract also provides for damages of up to £7 million, but the extent of those damages might be subject to litigation. That is the commercial position of British Shipbuilders.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: The entire Scottish community is demanding Government intervention. The demand is coming from trade union leaders, from politicians of various parties and from church leaders such as Cardinal Gray who — despite what this incompetent Minister has said—seems to have a better sense of priorities in public expenditure than the Government. The cardinal has pointed out, in a message to the Prime Minister today, that the cost of renegotiating the contract would be a mere drop in the ocean compared with the Government's expenditure on nuclear armaments.

Mr. Lamont: How can the hon. Gentleman know that the cost of renegotiating the contract would be so small?

Mr. Canavan: Cancel Trident.

Mr. Lamont: It is not the view of British Shipbuilders that, within its budget, that would be the right course of action.
The hon. Gentleman says that the entire Scottish community was demanding that the contract should be saved. We have heard some different voices from this side of the House from those who have recognised—

Mr. Canavan: What about the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley)?

Mr. Lamont: —who have recognised that the poor record at Scott Lithgow has caused this situation.

Mr. Dewar: The Minister's statement was disgraceful. It lacked humility and humanity, and offered thousands of workers no hope and no future beyond the dole queue. Am I right in assuming that the Minister intends to do nothing but see the jobs lost in a welter of litigation, and that the only action that has been promised is that the Secretary of State for Scotland will continue to stand on the sidelines, threaping ineffectively about his concern?
The Minister has given the impression that he positively supports the cancellation of the order. It is most distressing to hear any Minister address the House in such a fashion. Is it not ironic that the Minister should talk about UIE possibly helping to pick up the pieces, when UIE was saved by the kind of state intervention that the Minister refuses to countenance? It is only in existence today, to be praised by Government Back Benchers, because of a Government initiative in the past.
Given the social consequences and the cost to Scotland, will the Minister realise that the public interest is involved


and that he should get the parties together and try to save the jobs by saving the contract? Anything less will be seen by Scotland as a betrayal by the Government and by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Lamont: I have certainly not said that I support the cancellation. I said that this is a commercial dispute between British Shipbuilders and Britoil, and that both companies should exercise their commercial judgment. Of course the public interest is involved, but so is the interest of the taxpayer. Massive sums of money have been poured into British Shipbuilders and Scott Lithgow.
The hon. Gentleman referred to UIE and the money put into it in the past. The money poured into that was on nothing like the scale of the £140 million that is being poured into Scott Lithgow. I am waiting for the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to tell us when they will urge Scott Lithgow's work force to accept the productivity deal on offer to them.

Mr. Canavan: Resign.

Tour Operators (Advertising of Foreign Holidays)

Mr. Neil Thorne: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the regulation of advertising foreign holidays by tour operators with regard to safety standards of hotels and accommodation in use by families with children.
This week, which leads up to Christmas, is perhaps more important than any other in the year in its dedication to the family. Immediately after the festival, we are usually inundated from every quarter in the press and on television with invitations to think about booking a holiday to look forward to the following summer.
We are shown, or have described, the merits of far-away places with exotic names and a great deal of sunshine, to dispel thoughts of the cold, wet winter clays at home. Many of those holidays are described as being ideal for families, to encourage the patronage of those with children.
Part of the excitement of visiting the places offered is to experience the differences in language, customs and culture, to see how other countries behave, and the advantages and disadvantages of their way of life. All those comparisons add to the excitement and pleasure of visiting foreign lands. However, when a hotel is described as a family hotel, surely it should not just mean that the proprietors are prepared to accept children, but that it is, in general terms, safe for them. That in no way suggests that parents should not take all reasonable steps to care for and protect their children, but, at the same time, they are likely to encounter unexpected hazards that can be lethal and should be drawn to people's attention before they book their holiday.
I should like to give two examples. In June this year, a constituent and his wife took their two young children to Minorca on the first holiday abroad that the family had had for five years. They have a daughter aged four and a son aged two. Their room was on the sixth floor of a family hotel that they had booked from a Cosmos package holiday brochure. On going to their rooms to collect their swimming clothes after breakfast on the third day. their small son was standing in the lift holding his father's hand. As the lift lurched as it started its journey upwards from the ground floor the boy lost his balance on the lift's wet floor and put out his hand to save himself. Unfortunately, the lift had only three sides. Being so small, in an instant the boy's arm was dragged down between the lift's floor and the wall.
Despite the fact that his mother pressed the stop and then all of the buttons, the lift continued to the sixth floor where the father managed to release the child's limb and rush him to hospital. A major operation and 45 stitches sewed back the boy's arm. The holiday was ruined and the family returned home for further specialist advice as soon as it was medically possible. After the operation, the Spanish surgeon told the parents that their child was lucky; two other children had been taken to the hospital earlier in the year but had lost limbs in each case.
The other example that I wish to mention is the report in the Liverpool Daily Post on 26 November about a 20-month old baby. In that case, the baby plunged 80 ft. to his death after crawling through the horizontal balcony


bars of a Spanish hotel which was recommended by the tour operators as ideal for family holidays. The rails were 8½ inches apart.
Those are not the only types of hazard, nor is Spain the only country where they can be found. There are other dangers in electric power points without safety shutters, windows without safety catches, poorly protected stairwells and swimming pools with inadequate fencing or supervision. All such matters are, of course, covered by building or other regulations in this country. Should either of the two hotels that I have mentioned, or for that matter many others, be described as family hotels without any warning to parents of the hazards that are likely to be encountered?
I have tried to encourage the trade, through its powerful organisation the Association of British Travel Agents, to take up the issue, because I believe that self-regulation is the best method of control in the majority of businesses and professions. It is sadly reluctant to take on that responsibility, or to insist that hotels take out third party insurance.
Over a period, it would of course be necessary for additional inquiries to be made when the hotels are inspected. It would also place a specific duty upon the tour operators to take special care in that respect. Those involved might also worry about the possibility of changes in the hotels after their inspection. However, none of those arguments in my opinion imposes insuperable difficulties. I believe that tour operators have a duty to warn their clients of dangers that they might encounter in any country in which they offer holidays. I should have thought that those hotels that can provide better service and higher standards of safety would be pleased to advertise the advantages and benefit from the additional trade. Where a trade is unable or unwilling to take the necessary steps to protect the public, it is open to Parliament to make good that shortcoming. Therefore, I ask the House for leave to bring in this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Neil Thorne, Sir Walter Clegg, Mr. Albert McQuarrie, Mr. Ivan Lawrence, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, Mr. Tony Durant, Mr. John Wheeler, Mr. Jeremy Hanley and Dr. Michael Clark.

TOUR OPERATORS (ADVERTISING OF FOREIGN HOLIDAYS)

Mr. Neil Thorne accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the regulation of advertising foreign holidays by tour operators with regard to safety standards of hotels and accommodation in use by families with children: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27 January and to be printed. [Bill 80.]

Orders of the Day — Health and Social Security Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill has three themes. First, it is about improving the rights of the public. Clause 1 deals with the important area of optical services and opens up the market for the sale of glasses; while a further example of the same theme occurs in clause 13 where the Bill tackles the wholly indefensible position of what is called "franking" which results in manifest loss for the members of some private occupational pension schemes. The second theme deals with the improvement of health provision and in particular the change in the status and construction of family practitioner committees. While the third theme contained in the second part of the Bill concerns changes in the social security law — of which probably the most important change is the new severe disablement allowance, which will replace the non-contributory invalidity pension and in particular the much criticised housewives' duties test. I would like to deal with these three parts in turn.
On optical services, the Bill follows a report by the Director General of Fair Trading on opticians and competition, which was published at the beginning of this year. The report took 12 months to complete by the Office of Fair Trading and in that time evidence was taken from a wide range of interests, including the opticians themselves. It should be emphasised that the report itself followed earlier studies such as the 1976 report of the Prices Commission.
The Office of Fair Trading report recalls that the opticians' monopoly is relatively new. It was introduced by the 1958 Opticians Act which in itself was a private Member's Bill for the registration of opticians, introduced by the late Sir Ronald Russell. As first presented the Bill sought to protect the title of optician and did not seek to prevent unregistered opticians from practising. But two new clauses were added during the Committee stage of the Bill which prevented the testing of sight and the sale of optical appliances by unregistered people. That monopoly position has continued to this day. In its report the OFT distinguished between the professional functions carried out by opticians, such as sight testing, and the much more commercial undertaking of selling glasses. On the sale of glasses, the Office of Fair Trading was under no doubt that the present position operates against the interests of the consumer in this country and in particular it criticised the restrictions that there were on advertising.
Basically the present position is that virtually the only advertising that is allowed is on spectacle frames displayed in the windows of the optician's own premises. The optician cannot advertise in the press; he cannot advertise on television or radio; he cannot advertise on prices or on the speed of service; and he cannot even advertise when he is open. The best information that we have is that the restrictions on advertising in the United Kingdom are greater than any other west European country, with the possible exception of Ireland.
Not surprisingly, the Office of Fair Trading came to the conclusion that from the point of view of the consumer —and that, after all, is the acid test—these restrictions on advertising were totally unsatisfactory. In a powerful passage on page 141 of its report it says that the rules of publicity effectively deny consumers information on available opticians in their locality; the range and prices of available products; the services that are offered by opticians in terms of opening hours and the speed of dispensing. Consumers, it says, are therefore denied the knowledge on which to make an informed choice of an optician. This lack of knowledge on the part of the consumers has the effect of increasing the ability of opticians to
fix prices without regard to the prices of other opticians and thereby to recover their overheads while operating below capacity".
In other words the OFT found that restrictions on advertising led to a lack of information for the consumer and wide variations in prices for similar glasses. That was shown graphically in one survey that was carried out in London where the same prescription was taken to 58 opticians. The prices offered by those opticians ranged between £44 and £103. It seems to me that that kind of example presents an unanswerable case for more information being made available to the public. It may be justifiable for one optician to charge more for the same work than another, but where that acts against the public interest is when the public are denied most reasonable means of finding out what the relative prices are and choosing for themselves. It was, therefore, not surprising that the principal conclusion of the Office of Fair Trading was
that the advertising restrictions result in prices being significantly higher and efficiency significantly lower than they otherwise would be".
It was this position that the Government were required to face. I know that there are those opticians who believe that it would have been more sensible for the profession itself to make proposals to lift the restrictions on advertising. I must say, however, that it had every chance and every opportunity to do just that. Earlier this year the General Optical Council made proposals on advertising which scarcely took the position forward at all. At a meeting that I and the Minister for Health had with the professions six weeks ago, again it was quite clear that there was no support for change. The choice for the Government then was whether simply to leave the position as it was, with all the drawbacks that that position had for the consumer, or to make proposals for change. As the Bill shows, we have decided to make changes which we believe will serve the consumer best.
The Government seek in this Bill to distinguish between the important professional role that opticians clearly have and the essentially commercial role of selling glasses. As far as the professional role is concerned, only registered opticians and doctors will be able to test eyes, to dispense to children or to dispense and sell contact lenses. We believe that those restrictions are reasonable, and we also believe that the access to a free sight test is important in detecting serious eye disease.
However, as for selling spectacles, we believe that many of the restrictions that at present apply to opticians can be lifted. At present, the rules governing advertising are proposed by the General Optical Council, which is composed of members of various optical bodies, who are in the majority, as well as medical and lay members. These

rules are subject to the approval of the Privy Council. But the only power that the Privy Council has is either to accept or to reject the proposals. It does not have the power to amend and, in effect, make new rules. We therefore intend to take power whereby the Privy Council car. amend the rules on advertising, while at the same time recognising that a distinction should be made between the professional function of sight testing and the commercial function of selling glasses.

Mr. Jim Craigen: I should like clarification Government thinking on this matter. I noted what the right hon. Gentleman said about eye testing by practitioners, but am I to take it that spectacles sold over the counter as easily as sunglasses?

Mr. Fowler: No. That could not happen under the proposals that I shall come to later. The glasses will have to be sold against a recent prescription whereas if the hon. Gentleman goes to buy a pair of sunglasses that is not the situation.
We then come to the essentially more controversial question whether non-opticians should be allowed to compete subject to certain conditions. This again was considered by the Office of Fair Trading. It found that there were likely to be unregistered sellers who would be prepared to come into the market, and it recognised that there was a case for having no restrictions at all on the dispensing of spectacles to adults. However, it reported that, if Ministers felt that the potential health risks outweighed the competition benefits, they could consider the alternative of derestricting dispensing but providing by legislation that spectacles may only be sold against a prescription issued in, say, the previous two or three years—the point that the hon. Gentleman was raising. Such a system, it said, would be likely to reduce the competition benefits, but would eliminate the health risks. It is basically that middle way that the Government have chosen.
Under the Bill, non-opticians will be prevented from supplying children or fitting contact lenses. It is also our intention to make regulations under which non-opticians will be able to sell only against a recent prescription that we would define as a prescription issued in the previous two years. In addition, we intend to consult on other conditions that a non-optician seller might be required to meet. I should be entirely clear about this: I do not want to reinstate a new and cumbersome licensing system which simply replicates what we have at the moment. It should be remembered that the vast majority of prescriptions in this country — this is unlike the position in many other countries — are made up not on the optician's own premises, but by special prescription houses where the staff involved do not have to be, and mostly are not, registered opticians.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Would not the Secretary of State accept that even in that case it is a registered optician who is taking responsibility for the delivery of those lenses, however they are made up?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, he is certainly taking responsibility for that and, as I have made clear also, we shall want to consider what conditions a non-optician seller may be required to meet so that he will be able to take a similar responsibility.
Necessarily, those changes take us on to the next stage of considering the the general ophthalmic service. At


present, the service provides free sight tests and free glasses for exempt groups, such as children and low-income families, and that provision will continue. I should point out that when, as we expect, prices in the new deregulated market come down sufficiently, the Government would see great advantage in also allowing the exempt groups the right to choose more widely and either reimburse them or provide them with some kind of money voucher. This would have advantages both for the customer and the Department of Health. It is not at once obvious that a Government Department is best equipped to carry out the cosmetic role of designing spectacle frames, and perhaps that is one reason why there has been only one updating of NHS glasses since the early 1950s.
The change will also mean that NHS glasses will not in future be provided for the non-exempt groups. At present, we spend as taxpayers almost £20 million a year in supporting all those who choose to buy NHS glasses, including those who choose to put NHS lenses into private frames. In effect, this means that anyone who chooses NHS spectacles or NHS lenses in private frames gets an average subsidy of £5 from the taxpayer. In the vast majority of cases I cannot believe that that subsidy is justified. On the other hand, it has been argued that those with the very poorest sight need complicated and more expensive lenses, and I am certainly prepared to consider the evidence on that to see whether they can have continued access to NHS glasses.

Mr. Ernie Roberts: Is not the exemption of children under the Bill an evidence of the serious results that can arise if eyesight is not treated correctly, and is that not just as important for old people as for children?

Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman reads the report of the Office of Fair Trading and takes account of professional opinion, he will find that he is certainly right in what he says about children. That is why we have made these provisions, not only in terms of dispensing for children but in terms of stating to whom and where children should go. As for adults, the report makes it clear that even when the average person is prescribed and dispensed a wrong pair of glasses, that will not cause damage to the adult's eyesight. and that is an important point to remember.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: We are now discussing a crucial point. The Minister will be aware that opticians, although perhaps with a vested interest, fundamentally disagree with paragraph 14.13 of the OFT report, which says, in effect, that inaccurate spectacles —not cause permanent damage to the eyes, but only a minor discomforture. Is my hon. Friend relying just on that paragraph in the report or has the Department gone into the matter in greater detail? Is he aware that health care is the crucial matter in this context? Is he further aware that hon. Members in all parts of the House would feel happier if they knew that the Government had made further investigations into the matter?

Mr. Fowler: We have gone into that. My hon. Friend will have seen from the paragraph in the report to which he referred that in evidence to the OFT only one person from the professional bodies sought to challenge the

conclusion of the OFT in the matter. However, it is also the view of the medical advice that is available to my Department.
Let us be clear that the only revolutionary principle involved in these proposals is that basically we are saying that the service generally should be organised with the interests of the consumer first. Certainly there is nothing new in the principle of paying for spectacles, and it would be ironic if the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) were to argue that this marks the end of the NHS as we know it.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is this not saving money?

Mr. Fowler: I shall come to precisely that point.
As Opposition Members know full well, the principle of charging for optical services was introduced by a Labour Government in 1951, when the then Minister for Health, Mr. Hilary Marquand, said that the Bill—the one that he was then introducing—had been described in some quarters as an attack on the NHS or as the first step in dismantling the service. We have heard that phrase before.
Mr. Marquand went on to say that he was tempted to voice the indignation that he felt about that, and pointed out that the then Government were putting forward plans to expand the hospital and general practitioner services. Mr. Marquand hoped that those who were critical would realise that their criticism was ill-founded.
I do not think that I could improve on that defence, for that is exactly the position today. [Interruption.] The House should be in no doubt about our objectives. Obviously we shall listen to the arguments that are adduced, but our objectives are to give better value for money, to promote competition and to remove from the state a function that it cannot do well and has not done well in the past and, above all, to promote a better service for the consumer.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: How will the changes affect families on supplementary benefit?

Mr. Fowler: Those on supplementary benefit will be part of the exempt group who will continue to have NHS glasses supplied to them.
Consumer protection is also the aim of clause 13 of the Bill, which is taken together with schedule 5. That abolishes the practice known as franking in contracted-out occupational pension schemes. Although the working of schedule 5 may appear formidably complicated, it is important and is accurately summed up by its title, "Protection of pensions".
At present, one of the terms on which an occupational pension scheme can be contracted out from the state arrangements is that it should provide a guaranteed minimum pension at the end of the day. If an employee leaves a scheme that guaranteed minimum pension must be increased by the scheme each year until state pension age. But injustice can arise—this was pointed out by the Occupational Pensions Board — where the individual leaves his scheme when he has an entitlement that is well above the guaranteed minimum pension.
He may, for example, have been a member of the scheme for several years prior to 1978, when the new system came into operation. Extraordinarily, under the


law as it stands—under the 1975 legislation—there is nothing to prevent a scheme revaluing the guaranteed minimum pension by using the extra pension rights which the individual had already accrued. In other words, the guaranteed minimum pension is certainly revalued, but only at the cost of reducing the remainder, leaving the same amount of total pension payable to the individual.
No one knows how widespread that practice is, although some believe that it is very widespread inside the pension industry. Equally, however, virtually no one now seeks to justify the practice, which clearly operates against the interests of the pension scheme member. Accordingly, the Government believe that action must be taken on this, and that is the reason for that clause. It is a further example of our intent to improve the whole area of occupational pensions and in particular the rights of early leavers, which have all too often been ignored in the past.
The second theme of the Bill is the improvement of health provision and, in particular, better primary care. Clause 2 and schedule 2 will make important changes to the status, accountability and structure of the family practitioner services.
I do not think there can be any argument about the overall objective. For most people the family practitioner services are the main contact with the Health Service—perhaps the only contact. The vast majority of all health complaints are treated by the family doctor or one of the other health complaints are treated by the family doctor or one of the other members of the primary health care team —for example, the health visitor, the midwife or the district nurse. It is the family doctor who normally refers a patient to specialist hospital treatment and it is the primary health care team which provides the continuing support on returning home.
Since 1979 it has been one of the Government's priorities to develop and improve primary health care services. Since we came to office the number of general medical practitioners in England and Wales has grown by more than 1.500. The number of community nurses is also up by 4,500. Last year there were over 200 million consultations with family doctors and 7·6 million patients were visited by home nurses and health visitors. We recently underlined that commitment when I announced to the House that we were making available additional funds during the next three years to tackle the problems of providing primary health care in our inner cities.
But what is equally clear is that we have failed to develop the right machinery to manage, administer and make accountable the family practitioner services. The present structure makes the committees accountable to me for the arrangements they make for the provision of services but dependent on the district health authority for their staff, accommodation and equipment. It was hoped that this shared responsibility would lead to better joint planning.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Did I hear the right hon. Gentleman aright when he talked about improving primary care in the inner cities? Will he talk to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has recently announced slashing cuts in the rate support grant to local authorities such as Liverpool? Does that mean that Liverpool will receive some compensation so that its primary health care facilities can come up to the standard in other parts of the country?

Mr. Fowler: I was reminding the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that in his normal, fair way he will need no reminding—that the Government have made £9 million available during the next three years specifically for the problems of family health care in the inner cities.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Peanuts.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman says "peanuts". We judge the hon. Gentleman on his performance in government, and he has much to be modest about.
It was hoped that the structure of shared responsibility would lead to better joint planning but it has failed to achieve that in many places and has hindered the strong thrust towards better community health care — the original objective of the whole policy. Very few would argue that nothing should be done. The changes that I now propose are directed towards better management and more positive direction of the family practitioner services, including better planning and better collaboration with other local services.
At present the system of dual control makes for considerable difficulties. Lines of authority are complicated and this affects the execution of policy. Under the new arrangements we shall have a single line of authority between family practitioner committees and the Secretaries of State. FPCs will become employing authorities in their own right, they will be responsible for all their own services, and they will be answerable for their own management costs. I believe that this will improve not only accountability but administrative efficiency—both by giving FPCs the incentive and challenge of sole responsibility and by enabling Ministers to hold them to account and require them to promote measures to increase cost-effectiveness.
Because of these changes the new FPCs will be stronger bodies than the old. They will be specialist committees that will be able to concentrate on primary health care. We want them to develop the planning side of their role in a way that a few have pioneered — for example, by producing detailed plans, in consultation with the local medical committee, for the development of family doctor services in their areas.
Part II of the Bill deals with social security matters—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Do I understand that the Government who came to power talking about cleaning out all the quangos will get rid of the representatives on the family practitioner committees and set up quangos throughout the country?

Mr. Fowler: No. The hon. Gentleman has slightly, but I am sure genuinely, misunderstood the aim of the proposals. It is proposed that the committees should be responsible in their own areas. At the moment they have dual accountability. We have rationalised the position so that we can have—

Mr. Skinner: Rationalised quangos?

Mr. Fowler: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman, when arguing about control and accountability, can argue that new quangos have suddenly and mysteriously been created. That betrays a total ignorance about primary health care.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Will the new structure have injected into it a greater level of comparability so that general practitioners can assess their own efficiency in treating their own patients?

Mr. Fowler: That is one matter to be considered. We want the family practitioners to contribute to the planning of local health services, and that can be done in several ways. They can provide information about family practitioner services, which will help them formulate policies, and they can encourage the development of primary health care in ways which will help to secure the creation of properly integrated health care services in the district. I think that the proposal of my hon. Friend is sensible and useful.
Part II of the Bill deals with social security matters. Clause 4 provides for the introduction of a new cash benefit for disabled people — severe disablement allowance. This benefit will replace the non-contributory invalidity pension, which is currently payable to those who do not have the necessary contribution record to qualify for contributory sickness or invalidity benefits. The present position is that non-contributory invalidity pension, while available to men and single women who have been incapable of work for more than 28 weeks, has been available to married women only if they are also incapable of performing their normal household duties.
Since it was introduced in 1977, this household duties test has been a source of controversy and discontent both on grounds of discrimination and because of the way in which the test operates. In 1980 the then national insurance advisory committee recommended that the test should be reviewed and that consideration should be given to finding a more acceptable alternative. The results of that review, which were carried out by officials of my Department, was published at the beginning of this month by the Minister who has responsibility for the disabled.
The review concludes that the household duties test is unsatisfactory both in concept and in operation, and the Government endorse that view. I do not think that there will be any disagreement in the House about that. We have, however, made it clear on a number of occasions that simply abolishing the test and allowing married women to claim NCIP on the same basis as men and single women is not a viable option. It would cost some £275 million a year— [Interruption.] I am not trying to disguise anything. It would cost £275 million a year, and money on that scale is not available. Even if it were, we are not convinced that spending it in that fashion would be the most effective way of improving the lot of the disabled as a whole. We needed to find a solution that was both fair and affordable, and one that would concentrate resources where they were most needed. I believe that the proposals in the Bill achieve that aim.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that 16,000 disabled married women who now receive HNCIP will not qualify for the severe disablement allowance?

Mr. Fowler: I shall come to those who gain and those who lose in a moment. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will concede that we are increasing —[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but he actually introduced the household duties system.

Mr. Morris: I am not shaking my head. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make it pikestaff plain to the House and to the country that 16,000 disabled married women who qualify for HNCIP would not qualify for the severe disablement allowance.

Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman confuses the position. Everyone presently in payment—

Mr. Morris: rose—

Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman must allow me to answer his point before he asks another—especially when he was wrong in the first place.
Those people in receipt of payment will continue to be paid. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about future losers under the scheme, and I shall come to that point in a moment.

Mr. Brynmor John: Did not the thought that they might have to spend £275 million on the allowance for married women cause the Government to break their promise to the House about consultation once the report was published?

Mr. Fowler: The report was published at the beginning of the month and it is available for the information of the House. It will be used in debates on the Bill.

Mr. John: On 13 July 1982 the then Minister for Social Security said:
We intend to publish the results of the review and then to invite consultation."—[Official Report, 13 July 1982; Vol. 27, c. 841.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman think that introducing the Bill on 1 December, having its First Reading on 2 December and publishing it on 5 December is adequate consultation?

Mr. Fowler: When we have the opportunity to introduce such legislation we should take it, and that is precisely what we have done.
The new severe diasablement allowance will be available equally to men and women regardless of marital status. Poople who become incapable of work on or before their 20th birthday will qualify on that basis. Those who become incapable later in life will qualify if they are also at least 80 per cent. disabled. That will be assessed by the same loss of faculty test that currently applies in the industrial injuries and war pension schemes. That again is a system that is widely accepted as an objective measure of disability.
We hope to introduce the new SDA in November 1984. We estimate that in the first year of full operation about 20,000 more people will qualify over and above the existing recipients of NCIP and HNCIP who will transfer automatically to SDA. Thus, in the short term the additional costs will be about £20 million a year. It is fair to add that in the longer term, since some people who would have qualified for the present benefits may not qualify for the new one, those figures may be expected to be somewhat lower. I make no secret of that.
The new benefit represents an important improvement in the level of provision for disabled people on several counts. First, it will result in an increase in the number of people eligible for benefit.

Mr. Wareing: How many?

Mr. Fowler: I have just given the figure, which is 20,000. It means that with increased take-up of attendance and mobility allowances, the real value of social security help for the long-term sick and disabled has risen by nearly 30 per cent. since the Government first took office. I am, therfore, disinclined to be lectured by the Opposition on that point.
Secondly, we are ending the controversial household duties test and introducing a benefit that is sex equal and that will be payable on more objective and well-tested criteria.
Among the other proposals on social security, there are changes to the dependency provisions of the social security scheme. We have already provided under the EC directive on equal treatment for a woman with invalidity benefit to receive a dependency addition for her husband. The directive does not extend to increases of retirement pension, but we have decided that to withdraw a dependency increase from a woman invalidity pensioner who retires and becomes entitled to retirement pension would cause unacceptable hardship. Clause 5 provides that such a woman would continue to receive a dependency increase. That is a wholly beneficial proposal and will cost an additional £500,000 a year.
Clause 6, taken with schedule 4, relates to dependency additions in respect of children. The House will know that the lower rate child additions now available with the short-term benefits — notably unemployment and sickness benefit—have been gradually reduced over recent years as child benefit has increased. We have never made any secret of our objective to move child support for those not at work because of a short-term contingency wholly to child benefit. The addition now stands at 15p a week for each child and it is our intention to phase out the additions completely at the next general uprating of benefits.

Mr. Meacher: If the abolition of the child dependency additions for the unemployed is dependent on improvements in child benefit, how can the right hon. Gentleman justify that when child benefit stands today at only 10p above its real level in 1979, while the child dependency additions have been reduced by £1·70 per child since then?

Mr. Fowler: We have been seeking to transfer gradually and step by step from child dependency additions to child benefit—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Answer the question.

Mr. Fowler: The answer is that child benefit stands at an all-time record real figure.
We have also been looking at the position of child dependency additions for long-term beneficiaries — notably retirement and invalidity pensioners. We think that it is unreasonable to view the child of a couple, who both normally work, as automatically dependent on whichever of them happens to become a national insurance beneficiary. A person who remains at work and earns a wage becomes the major breadwinner of the family and it seems appropriate that a child dependency increase should not be payable if those earnings are substantial. We propose, therefore, that where the partner's earnings are more than £80 a week, the first child's dependency addition should be withdrawn. Above that level of income, dependency additions for each further child will be withdrawn for each extra £10 of earnings. For example, a family with three children will not lose all of the dependency additions unless the earnings are more than £100 per week. Only the child dependency allowance is affected by this and not the child benefit itself.
There are several other clauses in the Bill, but I hope that the House feels that I have dealt with the most important provisions. We shall deal with any issues that arise on the outstanding clauses at the end of the debate.
Perhaps I should add that clause 9 broadens the basis for membership of the new social security appeal tribunals, which were created under the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983. That will be familiar territory to hon. Members.
The Bill encompasses a range of subjects. I make no apology for that, although it clearly makes it difficult to provide a neat summary of all its proposals. Basically, the Bill aims to provide better health care for the public. It improves the position of the disabled. Above all, the Bill is concerned with securing a better deal for the public. Most of the attention will no doubt be focused on the provisions in clause 1 concerning optical services, opticians and the sale of glasses. That reform is important and will be widely welcomed by the public. It epitomises the Government's policy, which is to put the interests of the user of the service first rather than those of the provider. It is on that basis that I ask the House to support the Bill.

Mr. Michael Meacher: This is a mean, nasty, spiteful and authoritarian Bill from an increasingly mean, nasty, spiteful and authoritarian Government. I shall spell out exactly why I have used those words. It is also a miscellaneous rag-bag of a Bill that artificially combines wholly unconnected issues.
However, there is one common thread running through all the unrelated elements. It is a theme that the Conservative party has pursued single-mindedly and relentlessly since it came to office. I refer to the piece by piece mutilation of the welfare state. Because of the welfare state's principled protection of the poor and disadvantaged, it has manifestly earned the undying hostility of the Prime Minister and her other Right-wing zealots. In this Bill, they have excelled themselves.
The Secretary of State may laugh, but he has succeeded in yoking together in one Bill the mangling of the general ophthalmic service, an authoritarian centralisation in the structure of the NHS which is unprecedented, even for this Government, a massive cutback in disability benefits—when what we need is a big expansion—and, perhaps most iniquitous of all, the virtual destruction of the principle of benefit as a right for the sick and unemployed, which has always hitherto been the cornerstone of a society freed from the shackles of a Poor Law mentality. It is that Poor Law ethos and attachment to punitive means testing — to which the Government have already shown themselves so studiously committed—that they are now so nastily reinforcing in this little Bill.
I shall begin with the Bill's assault on the ophthalmic service.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Government will make savings as a result of the Bill and the miscellaneous measures that have been introduced. Will my hon. Friend tell the House where the money saved is to go and what it will be spent on? Is it not true that the Government can guarantee that in next year· s Budget there will be a corresponding reduction in the amount of capital transfer tax paid by the better off in society, because the money being saved today will fund such reductions for a very small percentage of the population?

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That is the prime purpose of the Bill. The Bill is not about


health; it is purportedly about social security. However, it is concerned not with social security but with a redistribution from the poor to the rich. The £275 million that is to be saved by the changes in the introduction of the severe disablement allowance will certainly—and the House can rely on this — find its way into the next Budget and into further tax handouts to the well off. That is the whole purpose of this Government's mangling of social security and the welfare state.
As the Bill is such a panjandrum of unconnected elements and is four Bills in one, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that they can state the Opposition's case on the disability and social security aspects of this rag-bag compound of measures.
Clause 1 is a classic example of Right-wing Tory dogma in dismembering part of the NHS into its basic services only, while privatising as much as possible of the profitable elements in order to open up new markets for the Tory party's big business friends. The Secretary of State may laugh. Perhaps he does not mind that 3 million people will be deprived of the opportunity of low-cost spectacles of a quality that is properly controlled to British standards. It is no matter to him, because he only sniggers. However, those on small occupational pensions will be particularly hard hit, as the elderly are most likely to need complicated lenses, the prices of which will almost certainly triple under the new arrangements.
It is no matter to the Secretary of State, as he sits there smiling, that NHS frames, by being restricted to the poor, will become stigmatising as a badge of poverty for adults. The poor will become easily identifiable as such. That may not affect Ministers, but it will certainly affect millions of people. It is no matter to the right hon. Gentleman that the proposed free market traders in spectacles will be neither qualified nor accountable to the professional bodies, and that the public will therefore have no protection against prescriptions that are not properly made up.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that frames are leaving a factory not many miles from his constituency at £5·75 a time and being sold in opticians' shops at between £50 and £60 each? How can he justify that?

Mr. Meacher: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should make a point against a political interest that I had assumed he would support. There is certainly a huge markup, but the benefit is not going to the consumer.
The Bill is a classic demonstration of the Tory principle of redistribution from the poor to the rich on both the consumer and retail sides. The Secretary of State did not seem to understand the key point that the better-off will gain from the reduction in the price of private glasses. It is they who will gain as a result of the Bill, while millions of poorer families—and it will be millions of them, as under this Bill the NHS market is being reduced from 50 per cent. to about 10 per cent.—will be forced to pay a very big increase on the present average NHS price of £12.
Equally, on the retail side, the loss of dispensing work and the introduction of cut-price advertising by large corporations and multiples in main shopping areas will damage the small dispenser. So much for Tory concern

about the small business man. It will undoubtedly lead to a contraction of the service in rural and semi-rural communities. Again, the poor will be the main sufferers.
The most serious consequence of the Government's obsessive drive towards increased commercialism is that it will steadily diminish the crucial eye care aspect of the service.

Mr. Skinner: The blind leading the blind.

Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State seems to assume that dispensing is not a skill, when it certainly is. Shop assistants not trained as dispensing opticians will have neither the skill nor the facilities to centre spectacles correctly or to check that the lens prescription has been correctly made up. The result for the public will be eye strain and headaches at best. At worst it will be the inability to see clearly so that they are at risk in their work, a hazard on the road or otherwise may injure themselves unnecessarily.
If the Secretary of State thinks that that does not matter much compared with the benefits of letting American multinationals into the so-called optical market, where will it all end? Will the next step be to allow supermarket assistants to dispense drugs or to fit dentures on the basis of a prescription made up by a dental surgeon? The Government have clearly yet to learn that a high quality primary eye care service is incompatible with market place practices.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The hon. Gentleman attacks the entire measure as an assault on the poor, ignoring the fact that they will continue to receive free spectacles. Will he explain how a pensioner on a modest income, wishing to discover whether there is a choice of which he or she could take advantage, will be assisted by the Opposition's refusal to contemplate price advertising or any other easing of the present monopoly which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) pointed out, drives prices up excessively for everyone?

Mr. Meacher: If the Minister is really concerned to ensure that poorer families obtain low cost spectacles, it would be better to extend the exempt groups arrangement than to implement the proposal in the Bill which will certainly double or treble spectacle prices. Millions of families now paying an average of £12 will pay £25 or £30 or more under the arrangements proposed in the Bill.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman seems to oppose all our proposals for the optical service. Does that mean that he utterly rejects all the views of the Director General of Fair Trading on opticians and competition? If so, the public should know that.

Mr. Meacher: The Office of Fair Trading proposals offered alternative arrangements for the provision of spectacles to controlled standards and at modest prices. It certainly did not recommend the abandonment of low cost spectacles. There is an alternative which does not involve forcing millions of poorer families to pay twice or three times as much for their spectacles. The Secretary of State is clearly more interested in privatisation than in providing better spectacles for those millions of families and it is wrong of him to try to imply otherwise.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. He seems not even to have read the OFT report. The fundamental criticism in the report was that


restrictions on advertising led to unfairness for the consumer. Does the hon. Gentleman, in his defence of the status quo, also defend those restrictions on advertising?

Mr. Meacher: I am not defending the status quo. I believe that cheaper spectacle frames should be made available to many families who are now forced to pay extremely high prices. In this context, the Secretary of State should remember that it was the Government's failure to pay back the £90 million owed to the opticians which forced them to increase prices in the first three yearsof the Tory Administration to higher levels than would otherwise have been necessary. In the past year, prices fell from about £54 to about £51, although I agree that that is still too high. Nevertheless, prices are coming down.
There was an alternative to the Government's proposal for complete privatisation of the service. Under the Government's proposal, millions of elderly people who need expensive spectacles will have to pay £35 to £40 or more. Indeed, the Sunday Telegraph suggested that elderly people now paying £35 for complicated lenses will have to pay £81 in future as a result of the Government's proposal. Is that what the Secretary of State recommends and desires?

Mr. Fowler: The principal conclusion of the OFT report was that advertising restrictions resulted in significantly higher prices and significantly lower efficiency than would otherwise be the case. Does the hon. Gentleman agree or disagree with that?

Mr. Meacher: We have expressed no opposition to opticians providing more information about their prices locally, but we object to massive advertising by big companies in supermarkets and multiples which will undoubtedly drive many small opticians out of business. Is that the Secretary of State's intention? Does he believe that that is right? That will undoubtedly be the effect of the completely free basis for advertising that he recommends.
Equally retrograde and wrong-headed is the proposal in clause 2 to establish family practitioner committees as health authorities in their own right. It flies in the face of all Health Service planning in recent years to integrate hospital and primary health care. It is also the exact opposite of the system recommended by the Royal Commission on the National Health Service, and, more recently, by the Acheson report which referred to
the advantage in responsibility for a whole range of services in a given area being discharged by a single authority. Only then would it be possible for the barriers between different parts of the Health Service to be removed and for the current restraints and inflexibilities in the use of Health Service resources to bze overcome.
The Secretary of State turned his back on that recommendation but gave no reasons for doing so.
Another seriously disturbing aspect is the proposal in schedule 2 that the Secretary of State should appoint not just the chairmen but all 30 members of all the family practitioner committees — a total of more than 3,000 personal appointments by the Secretary of State. If that is not a quango, I do not know what is. At present, family practitioner committees elect their own chairmen, and the membership is appointed locally. One must ask what is the reason for the monstrous increase in Government patronage.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Renta-creep.

Mr. Meacher: No doubt my hon. Friend's expression will pass into the English language.
One would have thought that it was enough for the Secretary of State to have sacked all non-compliant chairmen of regional and district health authorities—or failed to renew their appointments, which amounts to the same thing, as there was no question of incompetence. The Secretary of State has stuffed those bodies with his own placements and he is now going for broke.
Perhaps the reason for that—the Secretary of State did not give one, and it is not stated in the Bill—is that the Government, having shied away from cash limiting family practitioner services following the Binder Hamlyn exercise, on which the Government are still sitting, are now looking for a back door route to the same end. I suspect that that is the motive. Perhaps it is also intended that once family practitioner committees have been given their independence, they will seek and undoubtedly be granted an extension of their powers.
Indeed, I am told that there are leading elements in the DHSS who favour family practitioner committees becoming primary care authorities with control over all primary health care activities. The Opposition believe that such a development would be disastrous, even on the basis of the present 50 per cent. professional membership of family practitioner committees. Nevertheless, perhaps that line of thought explains why the Secretary of State has arrogated to himself the momentously anti-democratic power to secure a conveniently compliant lapdog role for those bodies. He could then steamroll through more cuts in primary care services.

Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that while the Government are parroting on about democracy in the trade unions and votes for this and ballots for that, we now have an operation, which my hon. Friend has exposed, providing 3,000 Government—appointed positions? We already know that company directors pay substantial amounts of money to get a knighthood or a peerage. It is apparent that the positions that are to be created are for the benefit of directors of some of the 35,000 failed companies —for example, the Prime Minister's son, who has not made it to the top.

Mr. Dickens: Cheap.

Mr. Meacher: So far from being cheap, my hon. Friend always puts his finger right on the point. There is a disgraceful incompatibility between forcing trade unions into being democratic when they are already democratic structures and the Secretary of State taking the power to appoint people to 3,000 new positions. That is a disgrace.
There is another pointer in the same direction. Clause 3 seems to pave the way to honoraria being paid to family practitioner committee chairmen on the lines of payments which are now made to chairmen of regional and district health authorities. I am sure that the Secretary of State will not deny that the role of chairman of family practitioner committees, as presently constituted, is in no way comparable in terms of difficulty or time with that of health authority chairmen. Does that move not therefore betoken an enhanced role for family practitioner committees? If so, and if they are to be controlled by the Secretary of State through unalloyed patronage, are we not witnessing, first with Griffiths and secondly with the Bill, a comprehensive centralisation of power being imposed on the NHS? That utterly overturns the objectives of the


Government's White Paper "Patients First" and inaugurates yet another massive upheaval of the Health Service which is reminiscent of earlier Tory reorganisations in 1974 and 1982. That is a source of less than uninhibited pleasure. If the Government have any such intention, I warn the Secretary of State of our unmitigated opposition to any such anti-democratisation of the NHS.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: I have listened closely to what the hon. Gentleman has said. Will he help me to understand one point which I do not find clear? He was a member of a Government who cash limited the hospital sector of the Health Service, but he has given us the impression today that he would like there to be no limits on expenditure on primary health care. Why does he support a cash limit in the acute sector while not being prepared to countenance any restriction of spending in the chronic sector?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman has a background which deserves attention from the House. Perhaps he will say how he takes that view when the Binder Hamlyn report is finally brought before the House. At the general election, the Labour party made it clear that, far from cash limiting the hospital or acute sector, it believed in an overall expansion of spending on the NHS of 3 per cent. each year over and above the level of inflation.

Dr. Mawhinney: That is still a limit.

Mr. Meacher: It is a limit, but it is vastly different from and better than the 3 per cent. below inflation target that the Secretary of State is imposing for next year. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to debate that issue.
This is not really a Health Service Bill at all. It was extensively previewed as one which had a few social security clauses thrown in. It is easy to see why. Examination of the social security clauses reveals that it is an even nastier Bill. The Opposition unreservedly welcome the abolition of the household duties test, but that is about as far as the welcome can go.
The severe disablement allowance represents yet another pernicious exercise by the Government in the redistribution of poverty. They are giving a little to some people with one hand and taking away a great deal more from other people with the other. The central snag with the new proposal is that, although people who currently receive non-contributary invalidity pension and HNCIP will be transferred to the new allowance, in future, people who have become disabled after the age of 20 and would have been eligible for NCIP or HNCIP will qualify only for severe disablement allowance if they are 80 per cent. disabled. There can therefore be no doubt that a substantial number of men and single women might fail to qualify although they are still incapable of work.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Gentleman is right to underline that point. Does he agree that the results of the change will be much the same as what now happens with mobility allowance whereby, if there are two people with identical complaints, one will get benefit and the other will not? Does he agree that we should be tending to go towards an integrated and coherent disability benefit rather than a piecemeal approach, which is merely a backward step?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman has foreseen clearly what I was about to say. I strongly agree with what he said. The impact of the much more stringent conditions of entitlement for severe disablement allowance than for NCIP will be sharpest for married women. Almost all of the 240,000 women who are currently excluded from claiming NCIP by the household duties test will also fail to qualify for the new payments, such is the extent of the restriction. That much is clear from the DHSS estimate that 20,000 extra people will be able to claim severe disablement allowance from November 1985, and that that figure will eventually level out to an extra 5,000 beneficiaries. The main conclusion, therefore, and the Opposition's main complaint, is that the new conditions of entitlement will exclude just as many disabled people from benefit as did the old household duties test.
Far from moving towards a comprehensive disability pension scheme, such as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) mentioned—and that is undoubtedly what is needed—the Bill replaces discrimination on grounds of sex and marital status with discrimination on grounds of age. If people who are disabled early in life are to have a non-means tested incapacity benefit, they will have to claim severe disablement allowance before reaching the age of 20. In effect, they must write themselves off. If they do not do that, they will have to undergo an 80 per cent. disability test even though they might have been disabled from birth. That cannot be right.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): That is not right.

Mr. Meacher: When I say, "That cannot be right," I am saying that it is correct, but it is wrong to impose such restrictions.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is not correct because we are not imposing such a restriction. If somebody can show that he was disabled before the age of 20, he will be able to claim the benefit on that basis.

Mr. Meacher: That is a loophole that needs exploitation, but how many people get through that loophole, given the way that the NHS operates? That is a small concession.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman must already be aware that people can claim the mobility allowance if they can show, up to the age of 66, that they were sufficiently disabled before the age of 65. I do not have the numbers who do this, but it is a well-established provision. If that system works for this benefit, I do not see why it cannot work for the other.

Mr. Meacher: There is also the other type of problem —that if they seek to get work after the age of 20 they are also disqualified. It cuts both ways.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman does not understand it.

Mr. Meacher: The other objection is more fundamental. The Government have illogically, but deliberately, mixed up in the severe disablement allowance scheme two entirely different concepts—an incapacity for work test and a loss of faculty test. The Government have done that not in a way that would give them credit, but because they were forced to abolish the household duties test by the EC directive 7/79, requiring equal treatment in social security matters for men and


women. That comes into force in January 1985. That is the reason why we have this in the Bill. The Government are bowing reluctantly to this legal pressure. As the Secretary of State made clear, they have taken three and a half years to respond to their national insurance advisory committee report in the middle of 1980. However, the Government were still determined that abolition should not involve them in any significant extra expense. That is the principle underlying the Bill. The 80 per cent. loss of faculty test was tacked on, thus cruelly withdrawing from hundreds of thousands of women the prospect of benefits that the EC had opened up.
That is a major reason why I call this a mean, nasty, spiteful little Bill, but the chief contestant for that title must be clause 6. That provides for the abolition of child dependency additions paid out with short-term benefits. As the Secretary of State said, it is only 15p at the moment, but we are now seeing the culmination of a long-term Tory policy to reduce the real value of financial support for the children of the unemployed or sick.
The facts are clear. As a result of changing the basis on which the child additions were uprated in 1980, total child support — that is, child addition plus child benefit — received by an unemployed claimant has been steadily reduced until it is now £1·70 less than it would have been under the rules left by the Labour Government in 1979.
The Government seek to justify this by saying in their press release:
It has been the policy of successive Governments to make provision in these short-term cases, through the child benefit scheme.
What an almighty and breathtaking deceit to say that this was the policy of "successive Governments". Child benefit is worth precisely 10p more in real terms than it was in 1979—the first time in the history of this Government that it has been worth more. The Secretary of State has still not answered the question of how a 10p a week improvement in child benefit can compensate for a £1·70 a week cut in total child support. We want an answer to that question. If the Secretary of State is prepared to give it now, I shall be glad to give way.
The truth is that the Government's action has been condemned by their own social security advisory committee, which, in its first annual report, stated that the "objective"— that is, to replace the child dependency additions—
is a sound one only if there is no loss of income in real terms to families dependent on contributed benefit.
How do the Government justify this £1·70 a week reduction, except as just another mean cut?
There seems to be no limit to the Government's viciousness towards the unemployed. There are now nearly 4 million people deprived of work through no fault of their own. What do the Government do? First, they abolish the earnings-related supplement, tax unemployment benefit and reduce the uprating of unemployment benefit below the rate of inflation, and now the child additions are being phased out. What a mean, callous set of priorities, at a time when the Stock Exchange is riding at an all-time high, capital taxes for the high-paid are at their lowest since the war, and misery for the unemployed is accompanied, Budget after Tory Budget, by massive tax handouts to the rich.
As if all this were not enough, there is one last innovatory nastiness in the Bill, which, in the long-term, will be the most damaging of all. Even for those entitled

to long-term benefits—not the unemployed or the sick--child additions will no longer be granted to the beneficiary responsible for the care of the child. Instead, under the Bill, entitlement will depend on whether a spouse or a cohabitee is earning below a certain level—£80 in the case of a one-child family and £10 more for each further child. The significance of this seemingly innocuous clause is great. It represents the introduction of a means test to ration the payment of a national insurance benefit. Et represents perhaps the most serious and disturbing breach yet of the fundamental national insurance principle of contributory benefits to which entitlement therefore exists as a right.
The Bill is a further major step along the road down which the Government are dragging the country, from the welfare state to a means-test state. It is a direction to which we are adamantly and unyieldingly opposed. The nation is also overwhelmingly opposed to this constant sniping at benefits, this constant victimisation of the unemployed, this constant undermining and eroding of the structure of the welfare state. The Opposition and the nation are committed to the civilised protection and decencies of a welfare state and a National Health Service, which they unquestionably cherish. I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends, and to others who share our ideals, to reject the Bill for the mean, petty, spiteful authoritarian measure that it is

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me at this time and giving me my first opportunity to address the House. Naturally, I wish to start by making reference to my predecessors. I use that word in the plural because before the general election parts of my constituency were represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower), for Monmouth (Mr. Stradling Thomas) and for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist). I need riot say too much about those hon. Friends, as the evidence of the regard in which they are held by their electorate both present and past is shown by their continued presence in the House.
However, the greater part of my constituency was represented by the late Michael Roberts, who tragically died immediately after speaking at the Dispatch Box in reply to a Welsh debate. I have learnt early that he was held in high regard in the House, as I already well knew that he was held in high regard outside, throughout Wales and particularly in Cardiff, North-West. His untimely death was a sad loss, when he had contributed so much and was set to contribute so much more.
My constituency consists of attractive residential suburbs and farming countryside, being the northern third of the capital city of Wales. It includes, among other things, the University Hospital of Wales, the Wales and the Marches headquarters of British Telecom, the South of Wales electricity board and a large complex of Government buildings in which is located Inland Revenue PD1, which handles the affairs of hon. Members. I would also mention the presence of Amersham International—a very successful company, which recently announced the creation of yet another 200 new jobs. Its success for itself and its employees is a testament to the Government's policies.
My constituency is a forward-looking area. It has good communications, with two rivers, three railway lines, the


Eastern Avenue and the M4. Despite pessimistic references to the Severn bridge, these communications will facilitate the continued recovery of my constituency and of south Wales.
Coming to the Bill, I wish to refer to the provisions that deal with the sale of glasses, as I am concerned that we must not move forward too rapidly in our reform, and we must give proper regard to the best features of the present arrangements.
I start from the premise that monopolies are not usually a good thing—whether they involve opticians, as in our debate today, or solicitors, as in our debate last Friday. The complaints against opticians are usually, first, that there is a monopoly, and second, that their charges are too high. We would do well to remember that the present arrangements were brought about by an Act of Parliament. In answer to the first complaint, it is self-evident that there is a monopoly. The second criticism is not necessarily self-evident.
The report of the Office of Fair Trading says that opticians' profits have not been excessive. The opticians' professional body tells us that opticians' charges in this country are among the lowest, if not the lowest, in the European Economic Community. Nevertheless, that does not preclude us from wanting even lower charges, if that were possible. In replacing a monopoly, we must consider all the people who are involved—those who purchase glasses and those who sell glasses, and we must try to be fair to all.
Perhaps we should bear in mind another comment in the report of the Office of Fair Trading, that the private practice of the work of opticians has subsidised the work that they have done for the National Health Service. The report also says that the Department of Health and Social Security recently paid about £80 million by way of refunds or back payments for underpaid fees to opticians.
Our first concern should be with the competence of the people who may now be able to sell glasses under the new reformed regime. The basic competence is that they are able to read the prescription for the glasses. That implies, at the very least, a certain technical ability, which presumably will have to be demonstrated by an appropriate qualification. However, there needs to be more than a technical competence. I suggest that a professional approach, akin to the present system, would be needed.
There is a natural and understandable tendency to make the maximum profit out of any transaction. It follows, thererfore, that a commercial retailer of glasses would want to minimise his overheads and the amount of capital invested in stock, and go for maximum sales to achieve maximum profits. It may be possible to devise a limited range of standard lenses, and the salesmanship of commercial glasses retailers might persuade the intending purchaser to accept the nearest standard lenses, instead of the lenses that were actually prescribed. That would not be right. In trying to guard against people ending up with glasses that are not as prescribed, we must be concerned whether it happens by accident or by design. Although such lenses might be cheaper to the customer, and perhaps the retailer would make a bigger profit, they would not be what was paid for, and would not be value for money.
We all want the public to be better informed generally, and better informed in this respect. However, here we are talking about comparatively simple information, which

would be transmitted through advertising. It would not involve the public's ability to judge whether they had bought the best pair of glasses available, and it would certainly not involve the public's ability to judge whether they had bought the glasses that had been prescribed.
It will be necessary to ensure that the glasses are supplied against a recent prescription — in fact, a prescription that is not more than two years old. Presumably, some procedure will be necessary to ensure compliance with the condition that the glasses will be supplied against a prescription that is not more than two years old. Without such a procedure, forms of self-testing could evolve. That would not be evolution. It would be a retrograde step if one could purchase glasses over the counter, whether in Woolworths, Tesco or Sainsbury. Glasses might be purchased by the self-tester because he feels that they are nearest to the best available or, worse, that they have the most attractive frames.
Then there is the matter of after-sales services. In its simplest form, it could involve a complaint that something needs tightening in the glasses—that a screw is loose and needs to be tightened. At present, minor work of this nature is done at little or no cost—usually at no cost—by opticians. At the other end of the scale, under the heading of an after-sales service, there is the person who complains about his glasses but it transpires that the passage of time has encompassed a deterioration in eyesight that requires medical attention, notification to the person's general practitioner. It could be a treatable condition that a trained optician could detect and refer to the general practitioner. I cannot see that happening in the case of a person returning for after-sales service to a commercial glasses retailer. I stress that the Office of Fair Trading refers to British ophthalmic opticians as being among the most highly trained for the detection of symptoms of abnormality and disease.
Surely, in contemplating the reform of sale of glasses, it would appear that people who purhase glasses need greater protection than that which is available through the Sale of Goods Act. There must be a monitoring supervisory process for the new regime, and it will involve some cost, which presumably will have to be met by a levy on the retailers of glasses.
There may be another alternative. As the Secretary of State said, perhaps we should concentrate on the unsatisfactory restrictions on advertising, even though that might mean that we make progress slowly. I appreciate what the Secretary of State said about the unsatisfactory proposals from the General Optical Council and the difficulty of trying to amend the present rules. At least if we tried to move towards taking away the unsatisfactory restrictions on advertising, including the advertising of prices, that would be a major step towards achieving progress. Possibly we ought to move carefully and evaluate what we are doing.
A recent consumer survey revealed a wide range in the prices of glasses. That means that competition is widespread among opticians and that is to the benefit of purchasers of glasses.
We must bear in mind the interests of all involved. Wearers of glasses could be tempted to purchase cheap glasses. The elderly and the not so well-off might be tempted to purchase for price reasons alone and not take into account the many other factors. Many if not all sections of the community could be vulnerable to price-based offers.
Surely opticians are entitled to expect our consideration when we contemplate reforming their monopoly. They could be entitled to expect that whoever will now be able to sell glasses should have an appropriate technical expertise comparable with theirs and a professional competence appropriate to the sale of glasses. If we were able to achieve that, opticians would have no grounds on which to complain about the withdrawal of their monopoly.
I welcome the principles of greater competition and more informed choice in the Bill and, it is to be hoped, lower charges. However, we must be fair to all involved and, above all, we must seek value for money for the wearers.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) made an interesting and, indeed, stimulating maiden speech. It is often said that first utterances in this House should eschew controversy. I am happy to say that the hon. Gentleman's speech was not entirely non-controversial. I shall not myself deal with the points that he made, but I congratulate him on having made his maiden speech and hope that we shall hear frequently from him in the future. Moreover, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will never be afraid of controversy, which is, after all, what this House is very often all about. It is a legislative assembly, not a mutual admiration society.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said that today we are debating four Bills masquerading as one. As the House will appreciate, my principal interest, as a former Minister and now as Opposition spokesman, is in the proposals that affect the incomes of disabled people and, in particular, the proposal in clause 4 for a severe disablement allowance to replace the non-contributory invalidity pension—NCIP—and the housewives' non-contributory invalidity pension — HNCIP.
Following careful analysis of that proposal, the Disability Alliance, speaking for more than 80 organisations of and for disabled people, has described it as
a mean and shabby measure.
It regards the new all-or-nothing 80 per cent. test of disability as "harsh and inhuman" and condemns the Government for their "shameful" treatment of people with disabilities.
Leaders of the Spastics Society, the Disablement Income Group, MENCAP and the Multiple Sclerosis Society, among other organisations, were "astounded" when they saw the Government's proposal, while the legal and parliamentary committee of the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation was wholly convinced that, if introduced.
the new benefit would prove a disaster.
They are just some of the angry comments made to me about clause 4 of the Bill. The Minister had better understand, from the outset, that opposition to what he is proposing is both fierce and widespread. In fact, I challenge him here and now to name any authentic spokesperson for disabled people who has welcomed his proposal. I shall be happy to resume my seat, and give way to him, if he can quote even one representative of disabled people in support of clause 4 of the Bill.
The famous review by DHSS officials of the household duties test for HNCIP—which has been well described as Whitehall's equivalent of "The Mousetrap" — took well over three years to complete. The slim and superficial report of the review—the words "slim and superficial" are the Royal Association's, not mine — was finally made public in response to a planted parliamentary question on 1 December.
In the course of the review, no evidence was requested from either disabled people or their organisations, and the Minister must now explain why his Department so completely ignored them. This shocking absence of consultation is shown very clearly in the conclusions of the review and, as the Royal Association states bitterly in its response to the report,
the whole process appears to have been one of number crunching in which the numbers themselves are highly dubious".
The Royal Association goes on:
We also deplore the decision to publish a Bill at the same time as the review. Ministers have consistently given the impression that there would be adequate time for debate both in and outside Parliament on the review. The rush straight into legislation indicates that the Government want as little light as possible to be shed on their sleight of hand.
This is a most serious charge against a Government who repeatedly promised consultation with disabled people and their organisations on the outcome of the review of the household duties test.
Let me remind the House of the promise that was given by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), then Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, on 13 July 1982. I quote from the excellent brief prepared for this debate by the Library of the House of Commons:
Replying to a parliamentary question on 13 July 1982, Mr. Rossi, the then Minister for Social Security, said that the Government intended to publish the results of th DHSS review of the household duties test 'and then to invite consultation'.
The hon. Member was repeating equally firm ministerial promises made earlier by, among others, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) who, speaking as a DHSS Minister, stated twice within a single speech in July 1981 that the report would be debated and—"if wished" — voted upon by the House. The hon. Lady must now also profoundly regret having stated, in the same speech, that the DHSS's review of the household duties test was being pursued "most urgently" when in fact its outcome was not to be published until almost two and a half years later.
The hon. Lady like the hon. Member for Hornsey arid Wood Green, can hardly now be surprised by the angry comments by disabled people and their organisations about the Government's total failure to consult them and the dishonouring of the clear promise that there would be a debate on the outcome of the DHSS's review in advance of legislation. Their embittered reaction is the natural one of people who feel not only cheated and insulted but also betrayed. The hon. Member for Wallasey, more than any Member on the Conservative Benches, knows what painstaking arrangements were made by the last Labour Government to consult disabled people and their organisations about every aspect and detail of our proposal to introduce what became the first-ever cash benefit specifically for disabled housewives.
We first announced our intention in a House of Commons paper on 13 September 1974, which said:


Housewives in this context are essentially married women who do not have paid work and whose normal job is in the home.
Our proposal was aimed, as we made repeatedly clear, at helping the housewife whose disability was such that she had never been able to take paid work outside the home or to do household work.
There was an unprecedented degree of consultation about the new benefit we proposed. First and foremost, we worked closely with representatives of the disablement income group, sharing our thoughts with them as we went along and obtaining their views about principle and detail in return. We held linked discussions with representatives of the all-party disablement group in the House, again in an atmosphere of openness and trust. We also met representatives of the blind to look more closely at the particular problems of the blind housewife. Finally, we arranged a pilot exercise in consultation with DIG and, with particular help from the hon. Member for Wallasey, actually to try out with a number of disabled housewives and doctors the sort of questions we would need to incorporate in the final medical report and the claim form.
As the then Minister for the Disabled, I made my officials available for consultation with the all-party disablement group that was quite different in character and extent from anything that had been attempted by any previous Government. I know this will be readily confirmed by, among others, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), my hon. Friends the Members for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) and for Cynon Valley (Mr. Evans) and the hon. Members for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) and for Wallasey.
They were all most helpful in consulting me about the principle and detail of HNCIP and I thank especially the hon. Member for Wallasey for her help in pre-testing the arrangements we were to make when the new benefit was introduced by the Labour Government.
The reward for our having consulted so widely was that our estimate that the benefit would go to about 40,000 disabled married women was very nearly correct. By July 1978, within a year of its introduction, we had made 43,000 awards. Of course, we entirely understood the desire of many that the new benefit should go to more people. As we made clear at the time, however, the problem was one of resources. From the moment HNCIP was introduced there was increasing pressure to dispense with the household duties test, whatever the cost. Yet to have done so could have brought in some 300,000 beneficiaries instead of the 40,000 for whom we had been allowed to budget in accord with the intended scope of the benefit when it was announced.
To have obtained the money needed to introduce any kind of HNCIP at all was in itself no mean achievement. Here I readily acknowledge the help I had from fellow campaigners in the House. They exerted just the right pressure—I speak as a former Minister who welcomed pressure to do more—and did so both at the right time and in the right place.
As I explained to the House on 7 November 1978, after reversing a decision the previous September by a tribunal of national insurance commissioners that could have more

than doubled expenditure on HNCIP, the money was just not available to me to go further at that time than our stated intention when the new benefit was first proposed.
Nevertheless, we agreed that the question of widening entitlement to HNCIP should be referred to the national insurance advisory committee for consideration. This was done on 30 November 1978 and, when NIAC reported, following the change of Government, it became our policy to abolish the household duties test.

Mr. Newton: I am left almost flabbergasted by the last few minutes in which we have had — I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this—a lecture about the virtues of consultation, the result of which, in the right hon. Gentleman's experience, was to produce a benefit which has been universally condemned ever since. We are now getting a historical survey which omits entirely the fact that on 8 September 1978 the household duties test was greatly widened and virtually eliminated by a tribunal of commissioners but that on 12 September 1978 the Government published urgent regulations which put back the interpretation to where they wanted it to save the money and which came into effect on 13 September 1978. Those regulations were not then referred to NIAC until November after a major public outcry.

Mr. Morris: I have made it very clear that the money was not available to me or my colleagues who were DHSS Ministers to widen the scope of HNCIP in the way decided by the national insurance commissioners. [Interruption.] The Minister now whispers that the money is not available to him and his colleagues to widen the benefit they now propose. What I did was to make it repeatedly clear that we were always battling with the Treasury for more resources. Anyone who doubts whether our pledge to abolish the test would have been honoured should look at the range of new help made available to disabled people by the last Labour Government.
We not only honoured every pledge that was given in 1974, but indeed went further than the terms of our manifesto commitments in the advances we made. We introduced four new cash benefits for disabled people and their families between 1974 and 1979. Our expenditure on cash benefits alone more than trebled, from £474 million in 1974 to £1,584 million in 1979. We also more than trebled our expenditure on services for the disabled. Among 150 other advances, we introduced the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme and made industrial disablement benefit payable to the victims of byssinosis. We made occupational deafness an industrial injury and extended the attendance allowance to kidney patients dialysing at home. We extended the terms of reference of the Rowntree Trust family fund to include all severely disabled children without exception and gave substantial help to the thalidomide children. We introduced the vaccine damage payments scheme and financially supported the crossroads care attendance scheme.
We zero-rated VAT on aids and appliances for disabled people and also on aids and equipment donated to hospitals for the purpose of treatment or research. We made the new behind-the-ear hearing aid available to 1 million hearing-impaired people and set up the Institute of Hearing Research. We increased the blind persons' tax allowance, extended the "orange badge scheme" to include the blind and made capital grants for pilot residential units for young


people who are both deaf and blind. We backed the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978 and substantially increased special housing provision for disabled people. We widened the application of important provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act and extended the Act as a whole to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to stop the right hon. Gentleman but he must relate his speech to the Bill and not to what has happened in the past.

Mr. Morris: The issue is that of resources and whether Labour Governments honour their pledges. We exceeded the commitments we gave. Those are just some—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a general debate but a debate on a specific Bill.

Mr. Morris: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but our problem today is that the debate is on four Bills which have been pressed into one.
I gave only a random selection of the advances made by the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979 and did so as our credentials for criticising in this debate a Government whose policies are condemned not only as "mean and shabby" but even as "harsh and inhuman" by the organisations of disabled people.
I was told in a parliamentary answer last Friday that as many as 16,000 married or cohabiting women who are currently in receipt of HNCIP would not satisfy the conditions for severe disablement allowance set out in the Bill. This is a staggering figure which no doubt explains why DIG has said it can now be argued that it would be better to retain the household duties test.
It is totally clear from the replies that I have had to recent parliamentary questions that, in the future, far fewer disabled married women will satisfy the conditions for the severe disablement allowance than would qualify for help if the household duties test were to continue. This is a grave indictment of the Minister and wholly justifies the extent of the criticism levelled against him.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It is wrong.

Mr. Morris: The hon. and learned Gentleman will have the opportunity of reading the reply that I received last Friday. It made it clear that 16,000 disabled married women who receive HNCIP under the present arrangements would not qualify for the severe disablement allowance.
If and when the Bill becomes law, there will be women with a preserved right—

Mr. Newton: I accept that there are losers as well as winners in the long term, but I want to make it clear, not least for the benefit of those outside the House, that anyone who is receiving these benefits will receive the new severe disablement allowance so long as he continues to pass the incapacity for work test.

Mr. Morris: I should not have let the hon. Gentleman intervene. It is already clear to the entire House that married women who are in receipt of HNCIP have a preserved right to the new benefit. My point is that, if and when the Bill becomes law, there will be women with a preserved right to benefit, having qualified for HNCIP, who are far less incapacitated than other women in their localities who will be refused the severe disablement allowance. Yet this is the Government that promised—I quote their manifesto commitment—to provide

a coherent system of cash benefits to meet the costs of disability, so that more disabled people can support themselves and live normal lives.
The proposals in the Bill complicate the social security system and run totally counter to that commitment.
The Government also promised to "single out" disabled people for special help, whereas many disabled married women who would have qualified for HNCIP but will not satisfy the conditions for the severe disablement allowance, will feel that in truth they have been singled out for special hardship and unmerited injustice.
I am very concerned, as are many of my hon. Friends, that the Government have been unable to answer many of the parliamentary questions I have put to them about the proposed new benefit. In particular, they have no clear information to offer about the disabled people who will be disadvantaged by the changing rules.
Two categories of people aged 20-plus will be affected. They will be people who become incapable of work but are unable to satisfy either the first or second contribution conditions. The first category will include anyone pursuing higher education and the vast army of the never-employed. The second will comprise people, mainly married women, who have worked and satisfied the first condition but have fallen out of the system while caring for children.
In the parliamentary questions I tabled for answer last Friday, I sought information from the Minister specifically about the people of each age band from 16 to 30 who satisfied the first condition. I asked also for information about people of all ages who failed to satisfy one or both conditions. For until we know the number of non-contributors, we cannot fully assess the effect of clause 4. To both questions, the Minister replied that the figures I was seeking could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
I asked a related question, about how many current NCIP recipients—men and single women—would not satisfy the 80 per cent. test. There was no information available to the Minister. From somewhere or other the Under-Secretary of State has produced an estimate that 5,000 men, 3,000 single women and 4,000 married women over the age of 20 will claim the benefit successfully, once the severe disablement allowance has been phased in. Yet in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), the Minister said, on the same day, that only a small proportion of men and women become incapable of work after the age of 20. How does he reconcile his reply to me with the one he gave to my hon. Friend?
There are two more questions that I must put to the Minister. First, will claims from people of any age be accepted under subsection (2) if they can prove incapacity before the age of 20, and what evidence will be acceptable? Secondly, will the Minister ask his officials to produce figures on the number of men, single women and married women who will have to endure the 80 per cent. test, which were the figures I sought by parliamentary question last Friday?
I must also draw attention to another parliamentary reply which shows that, in the course of a year, only 160 people received awards of 80 per cent. or more as a result of industrial accidents and a mere 50 as a result of industrial diseases. Most incapacity is, of course, caused


by disease. Yet this is the experience on which medical boards are now to be asked to decide the benefits of many thousands of people.
The assessment procedure, with its all-or-nothing disablement cut-off, will cause deep and widespread resentment. More people will be subjected to the 80 per cent. disablement test than were affected by the household duties test and we ought now to be told by how much assessment costs will be increased.
We should be told also why the Government are ignoring the social security advisory committee's findings in favour of the introduction of a new partial incapacity benefit for disabled people who do some work but whose capacity to earn is affected by their disabilities. The present sick-or-fit and all-or-nothing system is now manifestly unjust and the Minister ought to let us know today if he is prepared to consider amendments to the Bill that will give effect to one or other of the alternative schemes proposed by the SSAC for a partial incapacity benefit.
The Government are saving £60 million this year at the expense of long-term sick and disabled people who have to live on invalidity benefit. That is the cost of their 5 per cent. cut in the real value of invalidity benefit. In the Bill, the Government are proposing further hardship for invalidity pensioners by the back-door means testing of national insurance benefits. For a sick or disabled claimant with three children, there could be a loss of £22·80 per week because of what is proposed about child dependency additions. That is a scandalous new assault on some of the most vulnerable people in this country by a Government who, in a single day, gave £1,500 million in tax cuts to the richest 5 per cent. of taxpayers. By their priorities ye shall know them.
The Secretary of State must know that the Bill has had the worst reception among informed critics since Peter O'Toole's "Macbeth". In that case, so it was said, the production was so bad that the only people who went to see it did so to see just how bad it was. That would be no witticism in the case of this Bill, yet the Minister speaks of it as a masterpiece and of his audience as a failure.
I say emphatically that the Bill does not deserve a Second Reading and venture to hope that even some hon. Members opposite will weigh very carefully the criticisms of disabled people and their organisations before voting in the Lobbies tonight.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: It gives me great pleasure to be the first Conservative colleague to compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on his maiden speech. Conservative Members and, I believe, Opposition Members, will warmly welcome the tribute that he paid to his predecessor, Mr. Michael Roberts, who was held in high esteem in all parts of the House. I hope that my hon. Friend will note that heads are nodding in agreement in all quarters.
The House was impressed by the thought and care that my hon. Friend put into his articulate speech. It is frequently said as a matter of course that the House will look forward to the future contributions of a Member who has just made his maiden speech, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall do so with genuine pleasure.
I shall comment briefly on the two speeches that we have heard from the Opposition Benches. I believe that I have heard every speech made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) since he assumed his new responsibilities. I have an advantage over the rest of the House in that the hon. Gentleman gave an exclusive story to my local paper in Peterborough on his views on health matters. I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say that the impression generated by his means of communication reminds me of the speaker's notes which advise: "At this point argument weak — shout louder." The hon. Gentleman has a legitimate political viewpoint and a legitimate contribution to make, and I do not doubt his sincerity. However, it is difficult to get at what he is trying to say through all his rhetoric, and the rhetoric diminishes the strength of his arguments. That was especially true this afternoon.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) made an interesting speech. I suspect that my colleagues would agree that by protesting so much about his record, the right hon. Gentleman simply demonstrated to the House the inadequacy of what he was advancing. That became increasingly clear in the course of his speech. It is strange and unacceptable to be told that the Labour Government were limited by the Treasury, but that a Conservative Government, when the Labour party is safely in opposition and likely to remain so for some considerable time, are to be denigrated because—

Mr. Alfred Morris: I made it pikestaff plain that between 1974 and 1979 the Labour Government more than trebled their spending on cash benefits for the disabled. I also made it clear that we trebled our spending on services for the disabled. It is also fair to point out that our increase in spending far outstripped the increase in inflation. Our record deserves to be much more widely acknowledged.

Dr. Mawhinney: We can infer from that intervention that the right hon. Gentleman feels under-appreciated. He has certainly given the House a chance this afternoon to appreciate both the Labour Government's record and the discontinuities in his argument.
I support the measured proposals on the optical service. Those involved in the service, and a few of my hon. Friends, have reservations. I respect their views. In particular, I respect the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), as does the whole House. She has considerable knowledge of these matters. If she catches your eye later in the debate, Mr. Speaker, I expect that she may express her reservations.
Having listened to the debate this afternoon, and bearing in mind that clause 1 is only one clause in a long Bill, I hope that those with reservations will reconsider any intentions that they may have to vote against the Government this evening. I also applaud the work that is manifest in the provisions for aid to the severely disabled, which has been the subject of much discussion.
I should like to congratulate the Government on recognising the need in the primary care sector. I welcome the statutory structure which is to be provided for the family practitioner committees. Primary care by the family practitioner is among the most important aspects of medical care. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, it is frequently the first and the only contact that our constituents have with the medical profession and


the National Health Service. I know that he would join me in welcoming the improved professionalism of general medical practitioners. Courses have been laid on in medical schools such as the one in which I teach, and there is provision for training general practitioners after graduation. Such provisions, combined with the vocational dedication of doctors, have improved the services available to patients. No one listening to this debate should conclude that the work of general practitioners is not recognised and appreciated in all parts of the House.
The Bill is an important step in giving primary health care a statutory framework similar to that in the hospital sector. I did not intervene lightly in the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. The issue deserves to be considered coolly and dispassionately. We have an arrangement at the moment which is supported by both parties. It is agreed that there is a limit—we are not this evening debating where it should be set—on the amount of resources available for the hospital sector. At present there is no such limit for primary health care. Perhaps the House should not involve itself in logic, but in logic—never mind politics—there is no reason for assuming that it is permissible to have a cash limit in the acute sector while the primary health care sector is totally open-ended. There is no structure applying constraints or restraints or, at the very least, seeking better value for money in that sector, although hon. Members on both sides of the House accept that the amount of money available is limited and that the savings will be applied to patient care.

Mr. Ernie Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Mawhinney: I prefer not to give way.
I understood from the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West that he would not wish to see any restriction at all. I am sorry if I have misrepresented him. No doubt, in summing up, his hon. Friend will clarify what was meant.
There is a case for applying some structure of constraint in order to maximise value for money and to improve patient care, which is what, ultimately, the family practitioner committees are supposed to be about. Some Opposition Members may tell me that I am seeking to withhold necessary treatment from those who need it. That is not what I am saying. Personal experience, and conversations with medically qualified colleagues, have persuaded me that there is room for improvement in the service that is delivered.

Mr. Meadowcroft: In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said about the limitations on budget, does not the present system, under which overspending on drugs by the FPCs is to be clawed back from the hospitals' drug bills, contradict the case that the hon. Gentleman has put forward?

Dr. Mawhinney: Until we have a statutory structure for family practitioner committees, as envisaged in the Bill, there will always be tension between primary care and the hospital sector. It is in the interests of the National Health Service as a whole to have some form of structure for primary care.
I have two general questions for the Minister, First, the Secretary of State referred to the family practitioner committees as employing authorities. We should be told

how far their authority will extend. He said that they would become involved in work practices. How far will that extend? I may wish to go further than many other hon. Members in order to ensure that the structure has a high degree of accountability.
I do not fear the direct link between FPCs and the Secretary of State. One of the problems of the Health Service is that management and authority has been too diffuse over the past few years. There has not been sufficient accountability. Secondly, we have suffered, not just in the use of scarce resources, but in the application of treatments to patients.
I should like to raise with the Minister the subject of the amount of money that goes to general practitioners. He will remember that he gave me a written answer on 31 October which said:
the average gross income of general medical practitioners was about £34,700 (this excludes payments for the supply of drugs). Nearly 10 per cent. of that gross income was derived from the fees".—[Official Report, 31 October 1983; Vol. 46, c. 296]
It might be thought that when one goes to see one's general practitioner at night or calls him out at night that is part of the service under the National Health Service. In fact, the cost to the Exchequer in 1982–83 was just over £8 million in extra fees. One might think that obtaining vaccination or immunisation from a GP was part of his NHS service, but it is not, to the tune of over £11 million a year. One might have thought that going to a GP for contraceptive services was what he should be all about, but it is not, to the tune of an extra £18 million a year. One might have thought that going to the GP for the provision of maternity medical services was part of the service, but it is not, to the tune of almost an extra £30 million a year. For the year 1982–83 those extra fees totalled nearly £80 million. In the fullness of time, would it be possible for family practitioner committees to study that extra expenditure for what are often thought to be NHS facilities to see whether that money might be spent in other ways?
How pleased Conservative Members were to hear the Minister's statement last week that he will be encouraging GPs to become more involved in generic prescribing. That is plainly something that he and my right hon. Friend agree is important. It is accepted by Conservative Members and, I believe, the whole House, as an important contribution to the better use of resources. Simple encouragement might not be enough. I hope that the new FPCs will at least have the right to consider whether they should eventually start auditing GP prescribing habits.
I had an interesting conversation a few weeks ago with a medical consultant at the hospital in which I work. He said, "Brian, of course, you do not understand GPs. Many of them prescribe a drug in order to end a consultation. They cannot get a patient out of their office unless they can have a piece of paper." I replied that I thought that those days were coming to a close because the nation could not afford it.
I do not blame GPs. We are all responsible because we have all created a climate in which patients have been led to believe that they only have to go to their doctor to obtain a drug and all will be well. Those who know anything about health know that that is not true in many cases. In many cases people will get better even if they do not go to their GP.
My second question is about the relationship of these new FPCs with the DHAs in the areas in which they operate. I know that my hon. Friend shares my view that


there are benefits to be derived, as my right hon. Friend said, from close co-ordination and co-operation between the two bodies. I welcome the fact the DHAs will be able to nominate up to four people to serve on a FPC. However, in some areas, the four DHA nominees will not be sufficient to allow one nominee from each DHA that is covered. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider that point when he is appointing the seven other members, as he is entitled, under schedule 2.
There is no doubt that it is in the best interests of the NHS that we should make the best use of resources by integrating, as far as possible, general practitioner surgeries, community health clinics and outpatient departments. People tend to use them interchangeablAy more than in the past. They will be under different authorities. I hope that the chairmen of DHAs and FPCs can be led to understand that maximum benefits in patient care will be achieved by close co-operation between them. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that point. He has been an advocate of greater flexibility to maximise resources within the NHS. It is something that he needs to bear in mind as the FPCs develop.
I welcome clauses 2 and 3. They are a step in the right direction. It may be that they will eventually lead to the full integration of the services as proposed by Acheson. I commend my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I join other hon. Members in commending the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on his maiden speech. The hon. Gentleman has the benefit of being a Welsh countryman combined with long experience on local government which probably assisted the fluency that he displayed. I have no doubt that the House will welcome his future contributions.
As has been said, the Bill is essentially a composite of a number of items that do not hang together. A number of points that could be made about individual items might be better made in Committee. I am conscious that a number of hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, so I shall not deal with all the points.
The first half of the Bill contains a number of separate items, two of which are controversial. The first is the removal of the closed shop in the dispensing of optical prescriptions. I do not have any objection to that in principle, provided that there are adequate safeguards to protect those who will go to dispensers for prescriptions which could considerably affect them in their daily lives. I shall deal with the safeguards later.
The second point relates to the family practitioner committees. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) said. It does not follow that separating part of the Health Service will achieve the control over its expenditure that the hon. Gentleman fondly wishes. It is possible to argue the opposite—that containing it under the umbrella of the services which are constrained will provide the best example of the case that he wishes to put to the House. The experience of many hon. Members of the family practitioner committees is not, I believe, such as to encourage one to think that as separate entities they will suddenly start behaving themselves and be less self-defending organisations. I accept that general practice is a success story in virtually

every aspect. However, if that is the case, surely it would be wrong to hinder the application of that success story by moving the service further towards isolation.
The second part of the Bill, in so far as there is any consistent pattern with regard to social security, has a pattern that I and my colleagues reject, although certain clauses, such as the abolition of franking, we support. The trend of the proposals appears to be detrimental to the concept of a family — a concept that the Government profess to support. We shall vote against Second Reading tonight for certain specific reasons to which I shall come.
The safeguards in the Bill against unqualified optical dispensing are inadequate. It has been suggested that opticians have been cross-subsidising the low income they receive for their diagnostic work by charging higher markups on their dispensing work. If so, an examination should be undertaken to see whether they need an increase in the fees that they receive for that part of the work that will remain their monopoly. It is no part of my argument to suggest that that kind of cross-subsidy should continue.
The Secretary of State expressed some doubt as to whether the two-year period that he was suggesting for the validity of a prescription was adequate. He suggested it might even be three years.

Mr. Fowler: With respect, I said two years.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's comment. When he made his statement he indicated that he might even be prepared to consider an even narrower gap than two years.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there have been instances in the past when qualified opticians have been able to identify medical conditions in patients during eye-testing, and that for too long a period to be remitted in prescribing could endanger the health of patients?

Mr. Meadowcroft: Indeed, yes. Evidence has been presented to me and no doubt to other hon. Members, suggesting that that is so. The Secretary of State seemed to get himself into difficulty by failing to suggest some way to guarantee the qualifications of those who are dispensing—presumably with the aim of covering the point that the hon. Gentleman raised. Indeed, I hope that at some point the Secretary of State will detail what he means by "adequate safeguards". I do not see how one can protect people against witting or unwitting negligence that might lead to detrimental effect without some method of registration. Without registration in some form there is no way of preventing a person from practising as a dispensing optician. Indeed, if one wants to protect people financially against the results of bad dispensing, I suspect that registration is essential. It is not merely that the wrong spectacles may or may not cause harm to people's sight — I accept the evidence that they may not — but the effect of incorrect prescribing resulting in disastrous consequences for an individual in his work place or behind the wheel of a vehicle.
The second argument against supporting the Bill is the crucial one that it removes National Health Service optical provision from all but the young and the poor. It is reprehensible to create two classes of people and two types of provision entitlement. It is a substantial division because about one third of the population would have the right to National Health Service provision and two thirds


would be deprived of that right. A division on that scale would create a very unhealthy precedent. It harks back almost to the days when one could identify poor children by those appalling National Health Service glasses so clearly identifiable in our schools.
If the Government are right that the Bill will so help in bringing down prices that the National Health Service provision is not needed, then why not keep it, because the provision will wither on the bough? If that argument is not correct, then it must be kept so that adequate provision exists for people in future. The problems of mentally handicapped people and the necessity to make provision for them must also be considered as they will not be covered by the exemptions in the Bill.
I come now to the acknowledged problems of pharmacists in specific areas and the necessity to subsidise them. If we go too far in excluding National Health Service prescribing, it will be necessary also to subsidise the optical service in some of the sparser areas of the country.
The Bill removes the subsidy available through the National Health Service for the supply of unusual or complex lenses, with the exception of the one subsidy that will remain within the National Health Service provision generally. It is interesting that the Secretary of State in opening the debate introduced the new point that he was prepared to consider the prospect of some assistance where the lenses subsidised under the National Health Service were substantially more expensive than they would otherwise be. The National Health Service charges for all but what are described as the average NHS reading lenses are in excess of the price charged to the patient. The difference varies from some £4 up to £19. If it is right in principle, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, to subsidise those at the higher end of the scale, it should surely he accepted in principle that where the cost would be higher than the National Health Service provision the right to subsidy should remain. If this is not so, it is simply penalising those with more serious eyesight problems than those who are able to pay. That would surely be unacceptable.
I do not accept that it will be beneficial to separate the family practitioner committees from the general Health Service administration and accountability. The points raised by the hon. Member for Peterborough dealt with the problem of clinical freedom as opposed to accountability within the National Health Service administration. If he wishes to pursue that argument, it will have to be considered by the House when examining the available resources and the expectation of people for health services. I should have thought that was the wrong direction in which to go. It seems somehow to separate one part of the Health Service for direct administration through appointees of the Minister. Considerable dangers exist in having the power of appointment conferred upon one individual in that way.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: Does the hon. Member think the Labour party would repeal it?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. He seems to fear that the family practitioner committees will be made directly accountable by my right hon. Friend because my right hon. Friend will appoint the members. The hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting that they should be made subordinate to the health

authorities. Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten that my right hon. Friend appoints all the members of the regional health authorities and all the district health authority chairmen?

Mr. Meadowcroft: I was shocked by being regarded as a member of the Labour party. It is the direct control by the Minister that causes the difficulty. In the DHAs there is at least some indirect representation from local authorities, but even that is taken away. There is also the bizarre situation regarding schedule 2 and the place of a dispensing optician to be appointed by the Minister.

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman will have noticed, however, that in schedule 2, 23 of the 30 members to be appointed, while they are technically appointed by the Secretary of State, are in fact nominated by the various professional and vested interests — [Interruption.] I should not say "vested interests". I was thinking of professional and local authority members who are nominated locally by those groups. While it may be technically right to claim that they are all appointed, will the hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that 23 of the 30 will have been generated by the people most involved at local level?

Mr. Meadowcroft: My experience of indirect appointment, or indirect election, of people to bodies is that one can still select people who are in sympathy with one's viewpoint. If that viewpoint is as dogmatic as is often the case with Conservative Members, clearly it is not a satisfactory safeguard. Apart from that, I noted what the hon. Gentleman said about people having a vested interest.
I come now to the social. security implications. We welcome the abolition of the household duties test, as that removes the sexist element from social security provision. In that sense we welcome the merging of the noncontributory invalidity pension and the housewives noncontributory invalidity pension into one benefit. Again, however—this is another reason for opposing the Bill—this move has its attendant acts of meanness.
Although we welcome the simple test of "incapability for work" for those under 20, the 80 per cent. disablement test is worrying. It could lead to the most ludicrous anomalies. People who had previously claimed severe disablement allowance and tried to hold down a job and failed—probably for more than the eight-week linkage that is normally taken—might be refused the allowance because they were then over 20. Further, people who failed to claim until they were over 20, but who otherwise would have been eligible, would suffer from the same drawback. It is not sufficient to say that those who can demonstrate that they were disabled before the age of 20 had that opportunity open to them. That is a hard test to apply, despite what the Minister said about mobility allowances in other circumstances. The Government admit that some who would have been eligible under the old rules will be ineligible under the new proposals. It would appear from the financial memorandum that this will save only about £15 million a year. In the whole context of spending, it is a petty meanness that will hit the poorest and most disadvantaged.
As regards the child dependency additions, in principle, again, we support subsuming the short-term benefit under the child benefit, thereby simplifying and unifying one part of the rather Byzantine social security system. However, we object strongly to the fact that this apparent


simplification is being used as an excuse for cuts. Child benefit has increased by only 5p or 10p in real terms since the Tories took office, and that through only the most recent uprating. Before that the record was very different. In the corresponding period, the short-term benefit dropped from £1·07 to 15p. If the Bill is passed, simple arithmetic makes it clear that this will represent a severe cut in child support. To have maintained its real 1979 value, total support should have been about £9·20.
It is no use the Secretary of State saying that child benefit is at an all-time record when, taking it as a whole, the actual sum will be much less than it should have been under the principle that the Minister was trying to enunciate. The changes in long-term benefit are even worse because they are wrong in both concept and execution.
We oppose the idea behind these changes because they introduce an earnings rule in respect of what amounts to a national insurance benefit. Universality—the original Beveridge principle—is one that we still surport. These changes will give a vicious new depth to the poverty trap. One-child families, with one wage-earner parent in receipt of a long-term benefit, will find their income docked by £7·60 per week should that parent's wage increase from £79·99 to £80·01. That fact comes out clearly from the proposals in the Bill.
Although this change removes certain sexist elements from the regulations, in that women will have the same rights as men to claim the benefit—a move that is to be welcomed—it will still place women at a disadvantage, de facto if not de jure, because women claimants are most likely to be penalised by a means test applied to a spouse's earnings. These changes, according to the financial memorandum, will save £4 million a year for the short-term benefits and £18 million for the long-term benefits. I should have thought that sum was hardly worth while given the anguish that will be caused to the poorest in the community.
We thoroughly oppose the retrograde provisions for occupational pensions. It is remarkable that a party which in its 1979 manifesto said that it would abolish the earnings rule for pensioners, which it reiterated in its 1983 manifesto, should now make the earnings rule worse, which is precisely what the provisions relating to occupational pensions will do. Apart from being misguided, they are illogical, for the rule will apply to national insurance benefits but not, thankfully, to unemployment or housing benefit.
The composite Bill before us must be carefully weighed. I have made it clear that some of its provisions are to be supported. However, on balance its defects greatly outweigh its benefits and therefore it does not warrant our support at this stage.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I begin by declaring my interest in that part of the Bill that deals with optical appliances. I have for more than 35 years been married to an ophthalmic optician, but I must make it clear that he has no possible pecuniary interest in the Bill as his job is mainly connected with fitting patients for contact lenses, and that is exempted under the Bill.
The last 35 years have taught me much about opticians and I strongly resent the accusations that have been flung

about in recent months to the effect that opticians are money-grubbing opportunists who consistently make fortunes by overpricing frames. There are many things to be said in favour of opticians, and tonight I intend to say them.
It should be understood that for years successive Governments have deliberately underpaid opticians for their professional job of testing eyes and have told them that they must make their money from selling frames. Opthalmic opticians have a long training—at least four years and sometimes more; my husband had five years — and they know so much about eyes that they frequently spot the first signs of diabetes, heart disease, cancer and glaucoma.
Successive Governments have said, "We will not pay you adequately. You must get your recompense by supplying frames." That has always been a scandal, one that I have raised twice in the House. Now we are presented with a Bill that says that it is wrong even to do that. What, then are opticians to do? Practices must pay overheads, telephones, post, light, heating, cleaners, rent and rates, receptionists and so on.
I was distressed that in a statement made by the Minister on 28 November it was said that the "customer" should have the right to lower prices. I found it sad and significant as I listened to him today that he constantly referred to people who needed glasses as "customers." I refer to them as patients, because they need some correction in their eyes, and that is a health matter.
In any event, if "customers should have the right to lower prices", I hope that the Minister will agree that opthalmic opticians, dispensing opticians and others have a right at least to cover the overheads of running their practices. If the Bill is passed, the Government will have to pay far more to those doing eye tests, or else there will not be anybody left to do them. Both ophthalmic and dispensing opticians lose money on every NHS frame that they supply. On average, 36 per cent. of all frames supplied by a practice would be NHS frames. Since the introduction a few months ago of the short-lived women's new fashion frame, the figure has increased to about 40 to 50 per cent. in some practices. Every NHS frame dispensed is one on which opticians lose money.
Opticians also lose money heavily on domiciliary visits. My husband has said that he regards such visits as a social service. He tests the eyes of persons who are bedridden and unable to visit his practice and it costs him money. Many opticians provide such a service. The House should realise the type of service that many opticians provide without a word.
In December 1982, after five years of negotiations through the Whitley council — a body that does not make snap conclusions—the Government were told that they should have paid the opticians more. The Whitley council examined all expenses connected with running a practice. To the expenses that I have mentioned, we must add the time that is taken to test patients' eyes. The council concluded, after five years of careful study, that the opticians were owed £90 million in back pay from January 1978 to December 1982. A similar exercise by the Whitley council for earlier years came to the same conclusion, that opticians were underpaid. It also recommended substantial payments.
Something rather shocking has occurred as a result of the recent Whitley council report. A total of £6 million has been withheld from the opticians by the Government


because they claim that the opticians have made unintended profits during that period. In spite of the questions from every professional grouping of those connected with supplying glasses — such as on what grounds do the Government consider that the £6 million should be withheld, what proof is there that money was made by unintended profits, how was the £6 million calculated, which opticians benefited and received the money?—every attempt to elucidate answers has been met with absolute silence. The truth is that there is not one jot, tittle or shred of evidence that that £6 million is owed or was ever owed by the opticians to the Government. However, the Government still hang on to the money. If anyone other than the Government did that, it would be illegal.
Far from being the villains of the piece, opticians have not been treated fairly since 1951 when the then Socialist Government changed the rules and imposed charges. It is interesting to examine the sums of money paid to opticians then. In 1948 the dispensing fee for a pair of spectacles was 25s. If that sum was rounded up and inflation taken into account, the fee today would be £25. Instead, the dispensing fee is, on average, £7. In 1948 the examination fee was 15s. If that was rounded up and inflation taken into account, the fee today would be £15 — but it is £8. Before 1982, it was £4.50.
One might ask, how did the opticians manage? They managed because they did what the Government told them to do and sold frames. Some may have charged too much and profiteered. There are bad apples in every barrel. A view widely held outside the House is that not every hon. Member is always as honourable as he should be on every occasion. It would be wrong to paint the whole profession of opticians as villians. The overwhelming majority perform an excellent job and can hold their heads high in an ungrateful world.
The current charge of £8 for an eye test means that opticians must derive the lion's share of their income from selling frames. The dispensing fee will disappear except for the young, those receiving supplementary benefit and pensioners. About 40 per cent. of NHS dispensing will disappear. There will be no NHS glasses. I am worried about that because it will be a serious drawback to many people who, until now, have had their eye needs catered for by having NHS frames at a good price.
There are three categories of opticians — the ophthalmic medical practitioner, the ophthalmic optician and the dispensing optician, and the Bill affects each group differently. The ophthalmic medical practitioners and the ophthalmic opticians will still be used—or will they? The Secretary of State said on 28 November, and again this evening, that the Government will allow sales of ready-made spectacles, but sales by unregistered sellers will be against a recent prescription not more than two years old. I am delighted to hear what my right hon. Friend says, but that provision is not in the Bill, which allows this or any future Government to exempt ready-made spectacles from the definition of "optical appliances". it allows the exemption of spectacle lenses of certain strengths. Virtually anything can be done regarding spectacles except allowing unregistered sellers to fix contact lenses or to dispense for children.
We are dealing with an enabling Bill, and statutory instruments will be required. That will be dealt with in Committee, and we shall all long to be away in 10 minutes

when we should be dealing with these crucial points. That it is just not good enough. Such an important matter should be written firmly into the Bill.
My right hon. Friend must understand that leaving good eye care to the mercy of ignorance is wrong. What will happen to the Bill if the noble Lord Rugby was able to move the statutory instrument? God save and help the opticians then.

Mr. Fowler: If my hon. Friend examines clause 1(3A) at the top of page 2 of the Bill, she will realise that an order must be made which would be debated by the House. There is no question of my seeking to set down conditions that cannot be debated. Clearly they can be debated and approved or disapproved.

Mrs. Knight: Perhaps the preceeding paragraphs of my speech may be regarded as a probing amendment. I am delighted to hear what my right hon. Friend says. These issues are important and I and others outside the House believe that they should have been written into the Bill. Providing my right hon. Friend alters the 13ill, the ophthalmic optician may survive, even if his income is severely reduced.
But the dispensing optician sees his entire future at risk. The provisions of the Bill imply that he is an unnecessary adjunct—dispensers can be dispensed with. Members of the public will be able to get their glasses anywhere—the greengrocers, the butchers, the supermarket, at a street market or even from a man with a battered suitcase on the pavement in Oxford street. One may have to vie for his attention with a passing police constable, but he will be able to provide spectacles. The garage where I buy my petrol sells a wide variety of garden furniture, ice cream, cheap watches and Christmas wrapping paper. If the Bill is enacted, there can be no reason why the man who sells me petrol should not also sell me spectacles.
The Government do not appear to understand that expertise is required to dispense glasses. Anyone can read a prescription after a few hours coaching. I beg my right hon. Friend to understand the problems. Reading a prescription is only half the story. Because someone can read a prescription does not mean that he can automatically dispense glasses. Some ophthalmic medical practitioners are already declaring that they will virtually refuse to prescribe. They will not bother to test eyes unless they can tell patients where to go to have their prescriptions filled. All their training, expertise and care in the testing of eyes will amount to nothing if the glasses are not properly fitted.
My right hon. Friend wears spectacles. I ask him to lift them up and move them about a bit to discover whether he is capable of seeing if they are not properly fitted. Many different points must be taken into consideration if a frame is to be fitted properly. Even if someone has the best prescription in the world, if it is not properly fitted he will not be able to see properly.
What will happen if the glasses are badly fitted? What will happen if the patient cannot see properly? To whom will he go? Will he return to the man with a suitcase in Oxford street, or to the man in the garage—or will he return to the optician who gave him the prescription? It is likely that he will return to the optician and say, "You have given me the wrong prescription. I cannot see properly." That is what worries the ophthalmic medical practitioners.
How will my right hon. Friend judge whether a prescription is recent? After all, spectacles themselves


have been used to indicate a prescription. I shall take off my glasses. I am now holding a prescription in my hand. It is a recent prescription. Do I take these glasses to just anyone and say, "This is my prescription; please can I have another pair?"?
How can we know that my right hon. Friend's intentions will be carried out—

Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend accept that lenses, whether National Health or private, are made by highly specialised companies, and that their tolerances are beyond the dreams of years ago? If a prescription is correct the lenses, wherever they are sold in a frame, and by whomsoever they are sold, will be accurate.

Mrs. Knight: But that is exactly my point. The prescription is handed over to the seller, who will produce the lenses and the frames and sell them to what my right hon. Friend is pleased to call a customer. Britain has the highest quality lenses in the world by Government decree. That will not be the position if the Bill becomes law.
My right hon. Friend must understand that the trained man who tests eyes will not produce the lenses. The Government are opening up the business of providing spectacles to every bucket shop in town. How can we be sure that the prescription is recent? Who will monitor that, who will pay for it and who will ensure that the prescription is new?
How did my right hon. Friend decide on a limit of two years for a prescription? The present Act limits the validity of prescription to one year, and it will be dangerous to change that. Some patients with certain conditions need a change of prescription every six months. My right hon. Friend does not need to take only my word for that; he can ask doctors. Two years is a nonsense.
Why dispense with a prescribing system that has worked well for 35 years? I find it appalling that the Government have allowed themselves to be railroaded by ignorant persons—some in another place—who take the view that expert eye care should be sacrificed on the altar of cheapness. We all know that some articles can be obtained more cheaply than others, but the price for good products holds firm. Someone might buy a cheap pair of spectacles, but he must not kid himself that they will be as good as a more expensive pair. That is why the present regulations came into being.
The Government say that it is a person's responsibility to ensure that he has the right glasses. I suggest that they try to say that to the person who has failed to ensure that he has obtained the best glasses for his needs. If his vision is distorted, he could run over a child in the street. Let the Government try telling the accident victim that it was the person's responsibility to ensure he had the right glasses.
My right hon. Friend wisely made reference to the Opticians Bill, the second reading of which took place on 6 December 1957. He said a great deal about that Bill, but he did not say why it was introduced. The sponsor of the Bill, Mr., later Sir, Ronald Russell, said:
The objects of the Bill are … to promote a high standard of professional education and conduct among opticians and … to protect the public".
Another hon. Member said, "The quacks flourish." This part of the Bill is a quacks' charter. An ex-Minister of Health said that the Bill would be
safeguarding the rights of the citizen."— [Official Report, 6 December 1957; Vol. 579, c. 827, 855.]

Today, we are throwing all that away, and I am not happy about it.
I want to deal briefly with the critics who have said that glasses are cheaper abroad. There is no way that that can be said about NHS frames, which must be the best bargains in the world. They are supplied at cost. No one is making any profits from them. We could go from here to Timbuktu and back, but nowhere in the world will we find a better bargain than a NHS pair of spectacles. Anyone can have NHS spectacles and NHS frames.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Lady has made her best speech in 18 years. How does she intend to vote tonight?

Mrs. Knight: If the hon. Gentleman will possess his soul in patience, he will find out.
All NHS spectacles will stop, except for children and supplementary benefit recipients. The critics must take testing into account. Eyes are tested free in Britain, and we should be jolly grateful for that. Free eye tests are not available elsewhere. As the former Price Commission said, it is impossible to compare a $12 pair of ready-made glasses with the price of British private spectacles dispensed through a prescription, with the quality guaranteed of both the prescription and the lenses. The Price Commission said:
You are not comparing like with like.
We should not forget that the Office of Fair Trading report says that opticians in Britain are not making inflated profits. The former Price Commission said the same thing. Yet ill-informed people—some with a vested interest in the business of marketing frames purely for profit —have fostered the view, and persuaded my right hon. Friend, that our professional system is somehow unacceptable. Yet every independent body set up to examine the question dispassionately has concluded that opticians are not guilty of profiteering.
The average cost of spectacles in the United Kingdom is among the lowest in Europe, as the Common Market has recently discovered. The only other country in Europe where glasses are as cheap as they are in Britain is Holland —everywhere else they are more expensive. None of the glasses from Hong Kong or the United States have any quality guaranteed. Some of them have bubbles in the glass and some have frames with screws that fall out. That is very worrying.
On 28 November 1983, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
people who currently buy NHS glasses will in the future be able to obtain a wider selection of non-NHS glasses at reasonable prices."— [Official Report, 28 November 1983; Vol. 49, c. 438.]
Really? That certainly will not be true for those who need particularly strong lenses. At present such lenses call for a greater Goverment subsidy, so they are not very expensive for those who need them. However, that subsidy is to go. That worries me, because it is often the elderly and the poor who need stronger lenses.
No one will be able to obtain cheaper glasses than those currently available on the NHS. Why should my right hon. Friend say that they will be able to obtain them? Is advertising the magic touchstone? Broadly, I support advertising and am all for it, but we are not selling soap powder or furniture polish. We are talking about a service that will harm health unless it is carried out properly. I am


against advertising spectacles, because it will destroy public awareness of the importance of professional care for the eyes.
I pray in aid the British Medical Association. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have received a paper that I got this morning. The BMA's considered opinion is:
Since spectacles are a product with a significant health element, we do not feel that it is appropriate for the public to be unduly influenced in their purchase by advertising.
That is the BMA's view, and it is also my view.

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend fairly warned me that she would oppose me, and she is not doing a bad job of it. However, the principal conclusion of the Office of Fair Trading was that the advertising restrictions at present resulted in prices being significantly higher, and in efficiency being significantly lower than would otherwise be the case. Does my hon. Friend support that?

Mrs. Knight: I do not support what the Office of Fair Trading said about advertising. I am supporting the BMA, because it is more knowledgeable on this point.
I frequently go to the United States of America, and am appalled by the way in which glasses are advertised there. I remember that the neon lights on the other side of the street flashed on and off all night, destroying my sleep. I shall never forget that they said:
Go visit Abie Brown for the cheapest spex in town.
That appalls me. If the Government want to advertise spectacles, perhaps they should also return to advertising false teeth. When I was a child, huge pairs of false teeth were advertised. Will there be advertisements on the hoardings saying, "Dr. Giles, the best man for piles," or, "Green Lawn private hospital gives you the prettiest appendix scar"?
It would, indeed, be a retrograde step to revert to such advertising. It is also highly debatable whether advertising would increase business for those who do not advertise. Certain professional people, such as ophthalmic medical practitioners or ophthalmic opticians, will not advertise. The most professional people involved will not advertise, and nobody will make them do so. Advertising will be left to the cheap and less expert end of the market.
There is not an endless market. Sales of spectacles will not be increased by advertising, and that is particularly true for ophthalmic opticians. The bucket shop end of the market will advertise, while the responsible end will not. I warn the Government that if all the ophthalmic optician has to live on is the fee currently paid for testing a person's eyes—without also providing glasses—he will go out of business. He will not advertise. I can well imagine that those who have had their eyes tested will be attracted by the advertising to go to some cheaper firm.
No ophthalmic optician will be able to keep open his doors if he is not allowed to cover his overheads. Many small firms as well as those in rural areas will go under because they cannot afford to advertise. We shall have the problem of the pharmacists all over again.
It is very strange that one of the arguments used for the Bill is that it will introduce competition into the supply of glasses. This afternoon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the Office of Fair Trading had found that a pair of glasses could be obtained for, if I recall correctly, £40 from one optician and £102 from another optician. Which? magazine and others have pointed out that glasses can be bought more cheaply if the person shops around.

But surely that means that there is competition already. I am not sure that the report of the Office of Fair Trading compared like with like, and it is impossible to put the price of glasses in an advertisement, as it will vary so much. The case that my right hon. Friend made impeccably this afternoon for competition illustrated how much competition already exists. George Orwell, thou shouldest be living at this hour! What can my right hon. Friend's observations mean other than that competition already flourishes? One is quite free to shop around.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It is only her eloquence that is carrying my hon. Friend away. In fairness to the report of the Office of Fair Trading, a comparison was made between exactly the same glasses and exactly the same prescription for, in effect, the same patient. I am waiting to hear my hon. Friend explain why the optician who is competing and who can provide glasses at £40 should not be allowed to advertise in the local newspapers and elsewhere, so that people can exercise their choice and go to the cheap shop while still expecting the same service.

Mrs. Knight: There should not be advertising for health matters. It is obvious to everyone that the same sort of house is a jolly sight cheaper in the north than in London. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will not get off the hook quite so easily. They, and the report of the Office of Fair Trading, have admitted that there is already ample competition. Thus, competition already flourishes, and one is free to shop around. If the Government have drafted clause 1 and schedule 1 in order to introduce competition, we can all go home, because there is competition in abundance. However, it is competition with a built-in safeguard. The Government propose to bring in something that we already have and to jettison something that we shall always need. That worries me. At present, there are guaranteed safeguards for good eye care, but they would be a casualty of the Bill.
A great deal of nonsense is spoken about a monopoly. If I fly in an aeroplane, I want the pilot to have passed some flying exams. What a shocking thing to want! A monopoly! Just think, only people who have passed exams are allowed to fly aeroplanes! Shocking! If I needed my appendix taken out, I should want the operation to be done by a doctor who had passed a few exams. Pilots and doctors have monopolies over the services that they provide. Long may that continue! If, after having my appendix out, I want medicine, I shall want to go to a pharmacist who knows how to dispense a prescription. Similarly, I want an expert to test my eyes and I need an expert to fit my glasses.
The Secretary of State says that no one but a qualified optician will be able to sell glasses to children and families on low incomes. If that is put another way, my right lion. Friend is saying that only those two groups need expert eye care, and that the rest do not need it. It is only children and the elderly or very poor who need first-class glasses. The rest can go wherever they like. Of course it is vital that children should have excellent glasses, but is it not also crucial that those who drive cars, cranes and trains or who deal with dangerous factory machinery should also have expert eye care? Why single out the young and poor as the only ones to receive top eye care? Unless lenses prescribed by the profession are made up by experts they will not meet the required standard and accidents will be caused.
If one loses a leg, a hand or an arm, medical technicians can now produce workable replacements. We can obtain dentures if we lose our teeth, and wigs if we lose our hair. One can even get a new heart or a new kidney. But one can never get new eyes. Sight is one of the most precious of all God's gifts. We should prize it and guard it. Nothing in the Bill will actually rob us of sight, but it will certainly downgrade eye care in Britain—an area in which until now we have led the world. Bad glasses may not cause harm to eyes, but badly dispensed and fitted glasses will certainly prevent people from seeing as well as they should. There will be eye strain, discomfort, headaches and accidents.
This part of the Bill is a thoroughly bad and retrograde step. I shall vote against it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. In more than three hours of debate there have been only seven speeches. A number of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. Unless we improve the productivity rate, I fear that some will be disappointed.

Mr. Brynmor John: As the first stakhanovite, I wish to concentrate on two of the social security aspects of the Bill—the new severe disablement allowance and the child dependency allowance. I shall deal with them under two headings—what is proposed and how it came to be proposed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) gave a comprehensive review of the disablement allowance. I shall not repeat what he said, but I take issue with the Government's press statement introducing the new 80 per cent. loss of faculty test. Three and a half years after the Government began their review they proposed the 80 per cent. loss of faculty test, which they had not floated to anyone, on the basis that it substituted a test of which the Department already had long experience and on which there was no history of public disquiet or concern.
We are dealing here with industrial injuries and I can well imagine that the civil servant who wrote that press statement had never been near a coal mining or slate quarrying area in his life. Anyone who thinks that the assessment of pneumoconiosis has always been without public disquiet is utterly ignorant of the facts of that disease. There has been profound disquiet. Lest the relevance of this escape anyone, I remind the Under-Secretary of State that he provided me with the statistic that pneumoconiosis was the second largest industrial disease/accident requiring to be assessed. The largest single group, 80 per cent., comprised traumas—that is, accidents causing amputation or injury.
The same pattern is not repeated, however, for the illnesses compensated by the non-contributory invalidity pension. The Minister's answer to me on 16 December, as yet unpublished in the Official Report, stated that diseases of the genus arthritis and rheumatism accounted for 35·5 per cent. of such pensioners, diseases of the nervous system and sense organs, which clearly include multiple sclerosis, accounted for 26·6 per cent. and diseases of the circulatory system for 15·6 per cent. The pattern is entirely different. In industrial injuries, doctors

generally have to assess the effects of trauma. The 80 per cent. loss of faculty test is completely untried in relation to illness. We cannot predict how the tribunals will consider nervous illness. The whole basis on which the Minister commends the 80 per cent. test — its well-known characteristics and blameless past — is thus entirely false on both grounds.
Secondly, the present system is not universally popular. In addition to the pneumoconiosis experience, I refer to a book entitled "The Meaning of Disability" in which Mildred Blaxten produced a survey of disabled people of working age. On loss of faculty tests, she concluded:
The survey subjects were unanimous in finding this system ludicrous.
So much for the provenance of the scheme now being put in place of the household duties test. I should make it clear that I am delighted that the household duties test is being done away with, but I greatly fear that the new system will prove no easier, and possibly a great deal more difficult, to administer in practice than that which it replaces.
The non-discrimination requirements of the 1978 European directive are clearly the real reason for this measure, but the Government have looked for the cheapest, most grudging way to scrape by. The Under-Secretary of State shakes his head. He is good at doing that, but we have crossed swords before. As almost all men and single women are covered by the contributory system, very few of them will lose under the new scheme and the 80 per cent. test, but between 235,000 and 240,000 married women will be denied benefit under the new scheme. As it is a breach of article 4 of the convention to discriminate on grounds of sex either directly or indirectly, I believe that the fact that a huge number of married women and a minuscule number of men and single women will be adversely affected will mean that the Government will be in breach of that article. Indeed, I strongly suspect that that may be the only way to force the Government to face reality and to introduce a scheme of which the whole House can be proud.
Thirdly, the age of 20 has been chosen arbitrarily. The age of majority may be set at the arbitrary right figure of 18 or the arbitrary wrong figure of 21, but no evidence is produced to support the choice of the age of 20 in the context of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will deal with this when he winds up. The Government and everyone else are trying to encourage disabled people to experiment with work, but the Bill will penalise people aged 20 and over because if they try work for more than eight weeks after their 20th birthday they will lose their automatic right to benefit based on the fact that the disability was contracted before the age of 20 and they will then become subject to the 80 per cent. test. I hope that the Government will be flexible on that.
I also hope that they will be willing to make concessions with regard to full-time students. We are trying to encourage more disabled people to become students but they are hardly likely to experiment in work or in full-time education if the result of such action is to be taken outside the under-20-year-old rule, if I may so call it. Just as it is possible to pay NICP to students under 19 years of age in full-time education, I hope that the Government will be able to find a way in which to pay people over the age of 20 in full-time education the new disablement allowance.
What the Bill does pales into insignificance compared to the way in which the Government have presented it. It


has been a long time coming. The Government have given many replies to questions that have been asked during the long and anxious inquiries. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) mentioned bringing the matter before the House as soon as the review was completed. In a letter to the Spastics Society the Secretary of State said:
We are pressing on with the review in the full awareness that those who have made representations about the household duties test are impatient for results but I cannot at present give a date for its completion. When it is we will, as promised report to Parliament.
That was in March 1982. In July 1982, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green said:
We intend to publish the results of the review and then to invite consultation."—[Official Report, 13 July 1982; Vol. 27, c. 841.]
The review was published on 1 December 1983. The Bill received its formal First Reading on 2 December 1983 and was published the following Monday, 5 December 1983. Some consultation that was. The Government have hurried it through to avoid consultation.
Why, after three and a half years, is there such a rush? Why do the Government no longer feel that they need to consult anyone or that they can benefit from consultations? The only conclusion that we can reach is that the Bill represents the weakest and cheapest scheme that will formally comply with the appropriate European directive. I hope that even in its present lame and limp form the Bill will be found to be in breach of article 4 so that we shall have to re-examine it and arrive at measures of which we can be proud rather than those of which we should be wildly ashamed.
It is a bitter irony that in the week leading up to a holiday which is supposed to be all about children we are debating the formal end of the Government's legal responsibility to pay additional child support to people whose only income is either short-term insurance or social security benefits or long-term benefits. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said, people receiving short-term benefits have suffered a cut from £1·70 to 15p. That represents a cut in money terms as well as in real terms. Child support has fallen by 19 per cent. since 1979. The Government say that everyone agrees that the solution lies with child benefit. There are two approaches, however. We favour raising child benefit to the extent that people's standards of living would not be damaged if the child dependency allowance were removed. However, the Government insist on reducing the child dependency allowance until it is at the same level as child benefit. That is a quite different concept. The Government should be clear about their doing the very reverse of what most people, especially the child poverty lobby, want.
It is no accident that the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), after an early taste of the debate, has been absent for a long time. I suspect that he is being chased by his past and is having to run hard to keep ahead of it.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): Cheap.

Mr. John: That is not a cheap comment. We have suffered lecture after lecture from the hon. Member for Eltham about how he will rebel next time if the Government do not behave themselves. Of course, he

never has rebelled. The Under-Secretary of State has been conspicuously absent from debates on this subject until his most recent elevation—

Mr. Patten: I was in Northern Ireland.

Mr. John: —so he does not understand what has happened.

Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman's remark is unfortunate because my hon. Friend the Minister has been stationed on behalf of the nation in Northern Ireland and therefore could not be present in the House. The hon. Gentleman was unfair to my hon. Friend and I beseech you, Mr. Deputy Speaker to ask him to withdraw his remarks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a point of information which the hon. Gentleman has got on the record, rather than a point of order for me.

Mr. John: I do not dispute that the Minister has done another job. I said that because he has not attended enough debates on the subject he is not yet qualified to criticise my criticism of the hon. Member for Eltham. Some of us who have sat through many social security debates know the hon. Gentleman's performance and record.
The motivation with regard to long-term benefit seems to be confined to the European directive. No doubt the Minister will confirm that. The Government have acted in a grudging and parsimonious way. On Second Reading of the Social Security Bill in 1979 the Secretary of State said:
The second stage under which married women will be able to claim for children, irrespective of the husband's earnings".
—[0fficial Report, 20 December 1979; Vol. 976, c. 914.]
In Committee on the same Bill on 2 December, the Minister of State, Department of Transport—who was then in the Department of Social Security—said much the same thing. Now that we have the Bill we discover that what the Secretary of State said is not correct. A woman can claim for her children irrespective of her husband's earnings just as long as he is earning £80 a week. This is one of the few examples of the insurance principle being breached. The Government are introducing a means test on benefits into the national insurance principle. The Government cannot expect us to be enthusiastic about that, nor can they expect us to acquit them of misleading the House when those pledges were given. I believe that the Ministers who gave those assurances did so in good faith but whoever decided on the content of this Bill broke faith with the House and with those pledges. The result of the change is that people in receipt of long-term benefit will suffer a loss of 11·7 per cent. in real terms in the child dependency allowance.
The Government's record is frightening. Belief in the great advances in social security about which they have trumpeted today rely on our not reading the financial memorandum, which shows that the Government are saving £20·5 million a year. The Bill will result in not very well-off people losing even more. That has been the Government's consistent record. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security looks puzzled but if he examines page iv of the memorandum and does the necessary addition and substraction he will discover that what I have said is correct.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West was right. The Government have not yet risked a frontal attack on the welfare state. Rather. like a pack of curs, they have


tried to weaken it by yelping at its heels until it is too weak to fight back. The Government's claim that the welfare state and the Health Service are safe in their hands carries about as much conviction as a protestation about the digestion of diners at a Borgia table.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I have no links with the optical industry. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health asked my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) whether we should prevent opticians who made glasses £40 cheaper than somebody else from advertising that fact. None of us would want to stop them from doing so, and I should be happy for us to allow that, but that is not the same as a Bill that seeks to let untrained, unskilled people dispense glasses.
Sooner or later every hon. Member faces the problem of a Bill, or part of a Bill, that he does not like being introduced by his party. For me, that has come sooner rather than later and, sadly, it comes at a time when I should much rather be congratulating my hon. and learned Friend on the reforms that he announced yesterday in the system of deputising services for doctors. Those reforms are bold, far-reaching and necessary. I welcome them, but I am not happy about the proposals for opticians in clause 1
To call the dispensing industry a monopoly is laughable. A monopoly means an industry dominated by one firm, from the word "mono", rather as British Rail has a monopoly of rail. There are hundreds and thousands of opticians. By any standard definition, that is not a monopoly, but almost the complete opposite. We should not say that nurses have a monopoly because they are the only ones who nurse, or that garages are a monopoly because they are the only ones that sell petrol. Are we really to say that any trade, profession or job that requires standards and training is a monopoly even if there are thousands of people in the industry competing with each other, just because there is some restriction on entry based on qualifications or skill? It is ludicrous to describe that as a monopoly.
My reservations about the Bill are threefold. First, as a result of it, giant supermarkets will get huge discounts on a limited range of glasses and will wipe out small retailers, as has happened in so many other retail trades. This will give us less choice, not more, and less opportunity to have repairs done.
Secondly, clause 1 assumes that, as other hon. Members have mentioned, dispensers need no skill, but I reject that assumption. Under the clause, anyone will be able to dispense glasses. People should be able to dispense glasses only if they use properly trained staff in this specialised medical subject. Proper opticians use British standard lenses. After the Bill, inferior lenses, some of which are already available, will be used.
What worries me as much as anything is that there will be no one to check that the lenses are made to prescription. There is a belief that because someone has prescribed a particular lens, and the prescription has gone to the lens manufacturer, it will necessarily come back as the lens in the prescription. I have twice, by going to opticians with the proper testing equipment, discovered that the lenses that I was wearing were not the lenses on my prescription.

There is no provision in the Bill to ensure that those who dispense will have both the proper checking equipment that is available and the trained staff to operate it. All retailers who are dispensing should have checking equipment and the correct staff to operate it.
Thirdly, I am sad to say that I greatly dislike the labelling of the exempt group by the glasses that they wear. With my party loyalty intact, like my admiration for the reforms announced yesterday, I shall none the less oppose the Bill.

Mr. Ernie Roberts: The Secretary of State becomes fouler and fouler in his privatisation schemes for the Health Service. The Tory Government, not satisfied with the murderous attacks that they have made on hospital services, are now determined to make the public pay through their eyes by making them pay more for eye care. About 3 million people will be deprived through the operation of the Bill. Those who suffer most will be people, such as those whom I represent, who are already beaten down into poverty by the Government.
Let me give the House the opinion of an optician who, writing on behalf of ophthalmic opticians in Hackney, reminds me:
I wrote to you once before when the threat to the NHS General Ophthalmic Service was the breaching of the 'servicefree-at-time-of-need' principle, ie when the government was trying to bring in a charge for Examinations. The threat now is more like the total destruction of the Ophthalmic section of the NHS and this is not an exaggeration … The figures for 1982 for the whole of the UK show 5 million pairs of NHS lenses dispensed, of which 9 per cent. were children, 27 per cent. DHSS remits and the remaining 64 per cent. ordinary NHS supply. It is, of course, the last that would lose.
In areas such as Hackney, that 64 per cent. is more like 72 per cent. People in areas such as Hackney will be the hardest-hit group.
All in all, it turns the clock back to the 1930s and what starts with optics will doubtless become the pattern for dentistry, pharmacy and possibly even medicine.
The lady's view on advertising is that
it is unlikely to bring prices down in the long run as someone has to pay for it. Those of us that work for ourselves (and in spite of continual talk of monopoly most of us do) could not stand up to big money either indigenous or from the Americans and could easily be driven out of business by the permitting of advertising...
Why should the Minister talk about giving people supplying spectacles training in reading a prescription when we already have some thousands of Dispensing Opticians properly trained and registered and the public has the protection of the NHS and the General Optical Council?
On the other hand, the Financial Times made the point that those who buy NHS spectacles will be paying more while those who buy privately will pay less. Again, the better-off will benefit. The Sunday Telegraph says that pensioners with small occupational pensions will be the hardest hit, for they will have to pay up to £50 more for their high-powered bifocal lenses.
The changes in the Bill are opposed, as has already been said, by the ophthalmic group of the British Medical Association. They are also opposed by the Association of Optical Practitioners, which says that in its opinion the effect will be
to withdraw, from April 1985, NHS optical dispensing services from at least 3·2 million people (64 per cent.) who are currently using those services annually; to withdraw from these people, many of whom will be pensioners or others on low or fixed incomes who do not qualify for financial help — the State


subsidy; the State control over the price and quality of NHS spectacle frames and lenses; the 12 months limitation on the presentation of a prescription for dispensing; the inbuilt complaints procedure".
Those are the views of the members of the Association of Optical Practitioners.
The Prime Minister, who received the best and most urgent treatment for her eye trouble—she is a wealthy women — is denying to the poor of Hackney and elsewhere the same right to receive the best possible eye care. The right hon. Lady is driving them back to the 1930s, which I remember, when people went to Woolworth or to a secondhand shop to buy a pair of glasses. The people of Britain have a right to the best possible eye care that can be provided and in this country it is excellent. That is what we must defend.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I shall confine my remarks to clause 1 and schedule 1, ending the opticians' monopoly on the supply of glasses, ending the supply of National Health Service glasses to people other than schoolchildren and the poor, and increasing the freedom of suppliers of glasses to advertise.
Before I come to the main thrust of my speech, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) who made his maiden speech earlier. It was a very good maiden speech, and I am sure that Cardiff, North has produced a good parliamentarian who will be very useful on the Tory Benches.
I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is not in the Chamber. Therefore, I shall fight fair and resist the almost irresistible temptation of launching into the attack. His speech was spiced with words like "vicious" and "mean", and on occasion he introduced a couple of "mangles". He failed, in my opinion, to win the intellectual argument. In fact, the best speech from the Opposition came from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). I did not agree with what she said, but she made a good contribution. Long may we have hon. Members on the Conservative Benches—I like to think that I am one of them—who are prepared to speak plainly, whether they agree or disagree with the Government. On this occasion, the Front Bench will be delighted to know that I am on its side. I know that it likes to have me on its side.
The Prime Minister has said many times from the Dispatch Box that if we are to be successful in business we must produce the products that people want. We have to produce quality goods, at competitive prices and delivered on time. The last two elements are involved in clause 1—competitive prices and delivery times. The consumers' interest is paramount. It is imperative that we make provision for high street competition, and end the monopoly on the dispensing and selling of glasses.
How can consumers possibly get value for money? They must be allowed to shop around. We have to introduce a high street war so that people sharpen their prices. We have wonderful food shops in this country because of the fierce competition.
The General Optical Council at present allows no advertising of the prices of glasses. Nor does it allow advertising of the speed of service. In other words, if people want spectacles, as many do, just before their holidays, it is nice to find an advertisement saying, "We will give you a 24-hour service".
There are two quite separate functions. On the one hand, we have sight testing, which should be completely separated—as it is in the Bill—from the other function of selling glasses. Sight tesing is done by qualified opticians or doctors who will produce the sight prescription—that is safeguard number one—and it has to be a recent prescription. If I am selected as a member of the Standing Committee considering the Bill, I might be persuaded to try to push the Government into a one-year, instead of a two-year prescription. I give the Government that warning, in case they would rather not have me on the Committee.
There is a danger in many cases—in this monopoly it is a fact — that many opticians are simply setting themselves up as glorified doctors. In fact, they are highly skilled commerical business men, marketing expensive glasses. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston, whose husband was an optician.. as she declared, although he dispensed contact lenses. Not all opticians are the same, but some of the large chains are beginning to act in that way. We have to protect the consumers and our constituents.
I ask hon. Members to follow me into a large optician's shop. Their eyes are tested with sophisticated and fascinating equipment. They are told that they either need glasses or replacement glasses. They step outside into the plush shop and are confronted with hundreds of frames. Vanity being what it is, they want to get a frame that makes them look good. There are no prices on the frames. They sit in front of a mirror, and glasses are slipped over their noses. Finally, out of all the hundreds of frames, they find something to suit them. Then they start to talk about the price. They are a captive market. That is why we must be very careful
I know a factory — I mentioned it in an earlier intervention when you were not in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so you will be interested in this -- which produces glasses at a cost of £5·75. The factory manager told me that he had seen the same frames in a shop selling at between £50 and £60. I am talking about the frames, not about the lenses. That is a scandalous mark-up, and that is what the Bill seeks to prevent.
Glasses for children, and contact lenses, can be sold only by qualified opticians and doctors under the Bill. That is safeguard number two. However, it gives the opticians a real market advantage. If all the children come to a particular shop where they are well suited on price and in other ways, it can be habit-forming, and the shop has a captive customer. I believe that that includes children up to 16, but if they are in full-time education it can be up to 19. That is a good safeguard, and it gives quite an advantage to the qualified opticians. They get the children when they are young, and if they give them the right price and the right service they will have them for ever after.
Concern has been expressed about the suitability of shops, general stores, and so on, for selling glasses. People are not stupid. I watch the Secretary of State peering through his glasses at the shadow Secretary of State, who is peering back through his glasses. They can see each other, and they can see their notes, as we know from the colourful introduction to the debate. When people are given a prescription and go to a shop, they are not idiots. They are not going to walk out of the shop under a car. They will look at a board, and all the rest. We are not going back to the old days when the old soul used to go up to the counter at Woolworths, where there was a


mass of glasses and she tried on pairs until she thought that she could see reasonably well. We are not going back to those days. We are talking about a recent prescription that people take with them to get their glasses. Nowadays we have sophisticated specialised companies which produce lenses to very high tolerances. It is a different world. If one has a prescription and a general store has a stock of lenses one can rely on the accuracy of that prescription. The optician will continue to do his job, although perhaps the Government will have to find more money for testing to compensate for money saved in other directions.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: If one could rely on manufactured lenses always being supplied precisely as prescribed, opticians would not have checking equipment or trained staff for checking the lenses and my optician would not have twice discovered that my lenses were not made to his prescription. My hon. Friend is not making a fair point.
British standard lenses are used by almost all opticians, but once the greengrocer or anyone else can set up as a dispensing optician some inferior lenses will come from abroad which no one will check because they will not have the equipment or the staff.

Mr. Dickens: My hon. Friend does a disservice to our Front Bench and Ministry officials by talking about greengrocers or garages being able to dispense glasses. That is ridiculous. It has been made clear that people involved in the dispensing of glasses will be trained before being given the responsibility. We are not going back to the dark ages. My hon. Friend simply frightens people by making such statements.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I withdraw my reference to greengrocers. It is a phrase that has become standard and means untrained people. Of course, I do not really mean greengrocers. However, the Bill contains no provision for using trained staff to check lenses, to check whether the optical centre is opposite the eye, that a person's face is symmetrical or whether the eyes are exactly the same distance from the nose. Dispensing opticians check those factors.

Mr. Dickens: I am sure that the people involved will quickly become experienced with the minimum of training. It is one thing to be an optician capable of conducting eye tests and fitting contact lenses, for which the curvature of the eye is critical, and another to fit a pair of glasses on a person's nose. The stores will have separate departments and use the same measuring devices, and the operation will be conducted in a responsible way. The resultant competition will be to the advantage of the consumer. The Bill provides an opportunity for everyone, including constituents, to purchase glasses at a more sensible price.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I regret that I cannot share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) in supporting the Bill. I recognise the case for competition and for advertising wares. In Northern Ireland and elsewhere it seems that there is a shortage of opticians. Perhaps people looking for work could find a place in that profession. I criticise not the suggestion that opticians

should be able to advertise, but what flows from that. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth said that the Bill was not an attempt to return to the old days and that we can trust those involved.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) who made his maiden speech today. I also represent a capital city in one of the regions. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North displayed gifts and talents which will be useful to the House. He said that people would be tempted to purchase cheap glasses. He was nearer the mark than the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth and more aware of human frailty. By opening the doors as suggested, people might be tempted to take the easy way if they can buy glasses cheaper at the corner shop or on the high street.
I am not convinced by the argument about the mark-up on the manufacturer's price, because the same can apply to dispensing opticians. Any type of glasses can be dispensed because people are not aware of what goes on.
As I listened to the arguments, I drafted notes about how the Bill would affect Northern Ireland. Whether the Government intend it or not, the Bill represents a further serious erosion of the National Health Service. It means that at least 60 per cent. of the Northern Ireland population will be denied the right to NHS spectacles. That seems to be on a par with what is happening in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Some people say that the poor and children are provided for. I submit that a large number of the people who will be excluded from NHS optical dispensing will be pensioners or others on low or fixed incomes who do not qualify for state financial help. A growing number in that category are being caught by the poverty trap.
We are talking about patients, not customers. A significant number will require high power or multifocal lenses. It is not a simple question of providing contact lenses. A wide range of lenses exist for normal frames. The people who are subsidised by the state and need glasses because of their condition will be deprived of that aid. They will have to pay the full cost. In other words, despite the claims that the Bill will reduce charges, many people will pay more, not less, for their spectacles after April 1985.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) proved to be a valiant champion of the opticians, especially when she castigated those who seek to prune their activities. The hon. Lady certainly left the Minister with questions to answer.
A substantial proportion of an optician's university training is devoted to accuracy in dispensing. It is not possible to envisage that the present high standard will be maintained by unqualified personnel. Badly dispensed lenses can cause double vision, distortion and visual discomfort with a subsequent reaction not only to the individual but perhaps to the community at large. It seems to be impossible, from the evidence presented in today's debate, for the Government to ensure that spectacles are made only to a recent prescription. The power of a person's existing lenses is not measured, so new spectacles will not be made up to this prescription.
I am concerned, as I am sure many other hon. Members are, that the use of cheap, sub-standard lenses and frames could become widespread due to insufficient monitoring. How would the public who use unregistered persons be protected against the supply of incorrect spectacles by unscrupulous traders? If anyone suggests that there are no


such people, he is not living in the real world. For 35 years there have been price and quality controls by the DHSS and strict control over 80 per cent. of all ophthalmic lenses supplied by opticians. That protection, as I understand it, is to be removed from April 1985 from 60 per cent. of those supplied.
I regret to see that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), has left the Front Bench. I was happy to see him there, because I realised there was no Minister from Northern Ireland on the Front Bench, and the hon. Gentleman has some knowledge of the position there. He would know that the change in Government plans will provide direct competition to optical firms in the Province and optical firms elsewhere. It is important that we do not confront our own work people and suppliers with unfair competition through imported goods which could be subsidised by other bodies. That aspect may not have been fully covered during the debate.
I was puzzled about why the Bill was presented in this form because, like other hon. Members, I have been waiting for the period of discussion and consultation. It may have something to do with the coming together of the Government and trade unions. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) perhaps gave the game away because he talked about a composite Bill. I thought that this might be the Government's attempt to lean over to meet the composite motion of which the unions are fond. It has not helped in the presentation of the case.
I do not believe that the Bill has gone down the road that I and many other hon. Members would have liked the Government to take in the care of the handicapped and disabled in our society. While I welcome the removal of the household duties test, ultimately many will be caught in the trap again. Reference was made to those under 20. The Minister said that the way it worked for mobility allowance would be a guarantee that it would work all right in this new form. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members have already discovered that the mobility allowance is full of traps. Those who do not deal with medical problems, even on tribunals, or those who handle them in a different way quite often come to decisions which have jeopardised people with severe handicaps who want to live lives as normal as possible. They do not get financial support because of the rulings that have to be made. I submit that the Bill is in that pattern.
I was interested to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) who spoke about the family practitioner committees. He paid a gracious tribute to general practitioners. Many hon. Members would pay tribute to the high standards throughout our medical profession. Having said that, the Minister spoke yesterday on deputising and the new consultancy procedures. Apparently, a person who phones for an appointment cannot be sure whether anyone will be available to write out the death certificate a week later. This is where the "contactor bureau" comes into play. We must be fair and say that there is room for improvement in the method of general practitioner work. In that context, I would welcome a tightening up of family practitioner committees.
The biggest room in the world is room for improvement. I hope that, as the Bill goes into Committee, the Government will move towards improving it.

Mr. Alistair Burt: I should like to inform the House first of my own background and interest in health matters and hence in this Bill. My father is a general practitioner in Bury and is chairman of the local family practitioner committee. I have grown up in an atmosphere in which health care has been important and where consideration of the position at the sharp end—the scalpel end, certainly at the patient end—has been most important. The local health authority has an enviable record of care, concern and efficiency. It is an authority that proves that those three need not always be at odds.
I wish to speak not on the family practitioner committee part of the Bill but, like many other hon. Members, on the clauses on opticians. I had the pleasure yesterday at his invitation of visiting the premises and workshop of a local optician and discussing the Bill with him and a colleague on behalf of his colleagues in the town.
Before I go on to that I should like to say a few words about the general principle of liberalisation in economics. On that general principle and in the area of health care, I would tentatively offer the Government a basic principle which I am sure the country would welcome if it were put forward strongly by the Government as a reason for their actions. I do not believe that the country at large is composed of devout followers and understanders of economists, whether Adam Smith, Keynes, Friedman or whoever. Economics tends to matter to people rather less as words on a printed page than as an end result in terms of service or effect on the pocket.
I doubt whether the country would be enamoured of an approach which looks at monopoly of any type in a doctrinaire way as though it is in itself bad and must therefore be done away with. Much more acceptable, I believe, is an approach which looks at the service provided first and foremost and then at the way in which it is provided. If it is provided by a monopoly, the Government should approach it in this way: "Are we going to improve the standard of care or, at the very least, leave it as it is by liberalisation? At the same time, will it also produce the side effects of lower costs to the consumer?" If a measure passes that test, all well and good. Much though theorists may like to judge measures from other standpoints, the test that I have described is the one that the people will apply ultimately. They will test the service and not the economic dogma that lies behind it.
There is not a simple distinction between the professional job of prescribing and the commercial job of supplying spectacles. The dispensing and fitting stage is most important and the one that causes my constituents the most worry.
At present the responsibility for the eventual fitting of spectacles falls to the qualified optician. It is the optician who makes the prescription, which may be simple in specifying low-power lenses or complex in involving bifocals or heavier high-power lenses. Once the prescription passes from the optician's hands, he wants to know that it is in the hands of a qualified, responsible and thoroughly professional person. Technicians have a full and proper training, which may vary from three to five years. They work exclusively in the important area of making up opticians' prescriptions. Therefore, the dispensing optician has behind him a person with professional training when glasses are fitted.
It is vital, for example, that glasses are centred accurately and that the pupillary centre corresponds with the centre of the lens. If it does not, the glasses, at best, may fit poorly and lead to headaches and discomfort. In that event, the patient will not be able to see properly. At worst, the patient may suffer continually from bad headaches and the eyes may be damaged.
The Secretary of State has voiced his understanding of the problems and suggested a willingness to accept representations and to receive amendments. However, he expressed hostility to any licensing or registering system. I ask my right hon. Friend urgently to consider some safeguards to prevent the dispensing of optical prescriptions in an unacceptable manner in unacceptable conditions solely because there may be a reduction in the price of spectacles. If spectacles do not fit properly, money will be wasted in any event. I ask my right hon. Friend ultimately to reconsider his opposition to a licensing system.
It has been amply demonstrated throughout the debate that the possible lack of safeguards is causing the most concern. We cannot suddenly take away from the public a system of health care that has been built up over a number of years and quickly opt for something of which we know little. There must be a system of safeguards to work in with the present system of health care.
If things go wrong, where will the patient go for redress? At present, if anything is wrong with his spectacles or the lenses, he can go to the family practitioner committee but in future, will he have to rely for protection solely upon cumbersome consumer legislation? I am assured by my optician constituents that although certain states in the United States of America have liberal systems of spectacle provision and dispensing, Europe generaly does not. Europe generally has a system with safeguards of a sort that are not proposed in the Bill. We must proceed carefully and listen intently when my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health replies to learn whether any safeguards are to be introduced infuture.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State most seriously to reconsider his earlier decision to reject a licensing and registration system. Something of that sort must be introduced. Concern about dispensing is clouding, despite what my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) said, the general approval for the removal of advertising restrictions. The proposed reforms might on their own produce the effect that the Government must want, which is the maintenance of the standard of health care at a reduced price for the patient. The removal of advertising restrictions could produce what the Government want, and it is possible, despite what my hon. Friend said, to have competition with safeguards. It is not necessarily true to say that advertising within health service provision is unacceptable. I think that there can be advertising between opticians—

Mr. Meadowcroft: And solicitors.

Mr. Burt: Yes, and solicitors. The advertising must give the assurance that behind the comparison of cost and supply there is a professional background to ensure that the product that is being supplied is safe and that those who

provide the service are also safe. I believe that it is possible to have the competition that the Bill envisages with safeguards which, at present, are not in the Bill.
I do not think that generally the British people swallow the arguments of Opposition Members about the Health Service. More cant, hypocrisy and rubbish are still uttered by them on that topic than anything else. The Opposition have a disgraceful record on nurses' pay, strikes in the Health Service, cuts in capital spending on hospitals and health spending generally, and more rubbish comes from them on the Health Service than on anything else. I am afraid that the usual over-the-top Front Bench speech did not contribute anything constructive to the debate.
We must guard our own ground well. We must ensure that the charge that health care is less important to us then economic dogma does not stick. It must not stick, for it is not true.
The opticians give this country a good service, and their concerns about optical care in the future should be listened to very keenly. I hope that the Minister will take note of the anxiety expressed by opticians, and that it will be possible for safeguards to be introduced into the Bill. The concerns about dispensing, in particular, require an answer tonight.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Much has been said about the rundown of optical services. In Liverpool, and in my constituency, there is so much poverty and unemployment that more and more people will be encouraged to run to Woolworth, John Lewis, Tesco and Fine Fare in order to buy cheap glasses. The Government will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that there is anything to prevent any retailer from producing some adaptation of sunglasses which will be brought by poor people who cannot afford the high price which glasses will reach—particularly bifocals, which are necessary for many people—if the Bill becomes law.
A few weeks ago, the Government organised opposition to a Bill that I introduced on the severe disability allowance. One of their arguments was that there was not enough time to study the Bill. In a parliamentary answer, the Minister made the point that half the objections that he had received to the Bill had reached him before it had been published.
However, in the case of the severe disablement allowance, the report on the household duties test was delivered on 1 December and on the self-same day the Government decided their policy. They decided to deny 16,000 people the right to benefit. They did not consult the organisations of the disabled, which have nevertheless stated their views. The Disablement Income Group, for example, has stated:
Fewer disabled married women will qualify for the allowance in future than would have qualified had the household duties test continued.
The Government have introduced an irrelevant test. Some people who are 20 per cent. disabled are less able to work than some who are over 80 per cent. disabled. The test is irrelevant, and fewer disabled married women will qualify under the legislation. The new proposal will discriminate against everyone whose national insurance contributions do not entitle them to a contributory invalidity pension. The Government ought to remember


that. I hope that if the Bill reaches Committee stage, there will be enough opposition in Committee to ensure that something is done about some of the proposals.
There is no correlation between the degree of disability and incapacity for work. In its comments on the Bill, the National Consumer Council has stated:
SDA combines two criteria of incapacity for work and loss of faculties in a way which seems illogical. If the DHSS wish to compensate for costs of disability there is no need to place a restriction on the benefit in terms of capability of work. The joining up of the two concepts is simply a device to ration the benefit.
That is the crux of the argument. This is a device by the Government to respond to the wishes of the Chancellor. Every piece of legislation that comes before us shows more clearly that the Treasury has become a super-Department. The Secretaries of State for Social Services, for the Environment and for Education are all minions at the disposal of the Chancellor.
As a result of the decision which no doubt will be taken tonight, because of the three-line Whip, disabled people — [Interruption.] At least they admit that there is a Whip. There was also a Whip a few weeks ago. The disabled will respond in the same way as they responded to the decision taken then. They will be implacably opposed to the legislation, and will fight it. We shall lead the fight until the household duties test is done away with, without the need for such inimical legislation.

Mr. Frank Dobson: My first duty is to congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on his first speech. I always feel embarrassed doing that, because it is not so long ago that I made my first speech. He made an admirable speech, if only because it caused two signs of pain on his Front Bench. When he mentioned Amersham International, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's ghost turned in its grave. The hon. Member defended optical services in a way that was clearly offensive to the Secretary of State and the Minister. I hope that the hon. Member continues in that fine tradition.
When we consider this hotch-potch of a Bill we must remember that it is not an isolated measure; it is part of the Government's overall strategy. Their long-term strategy is to strengthen the rich and powerful sections of our society at the expense of the poor and the weak. As they made clear in their 1979 election manifesto, the Tories are tilting the balance of advantage further towards the employers. The main method used by the Government is the deliberate increase in unemployment. This policy directly deprives the unemployed of any power and impoverishes them and their families. Just as important, it makes many others in work frightened to press for better pay because it creates a buyer's market for jobs.
As Beveridge recognised, the buyer's market for jobs was the major source of impoverishment and the principal obstacle to the creation of a fairer society. No survey of the effects of the Government's policy on health, social services and social security should ignore the crucial fact that unemployment, poverty, inequality and health are inextricably linked. In the short term, the Government's policy is to ensure that the burden of coping with the world recession and the Government's economic incompetence should fall upon the shoulders of those least able to bear it—the old, the poor, the disabled and the sick—the

people whom the DHSS was established to protect. That protective role has been abandoned under this Government.
Time was when even Tory Ministers took a pride in defending their departmental functions and fightirg for a budget to meet their needs. That is no longer so. Now, promotion for Tory Ministers depends upon a craven willingness to sacrifice departmental services to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's crude butchery and the Prime Minister's spiteful whims. I will give one example of that change. Harold Macmillan made his reputation by building a record number of houses. The Secretary of State for Defence was promoted to his present task for building the fewest houses in modern times. It is necessary in those circumstances to study the record and character of the Ministers introducing this measure.
Long hours on successive Transport Bills gave me the opportunity to observe the deadly duo of the hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). Whenever people have met them, there comes the eternal question, "Why is the one with glasses Secretary of State and the fresh-faced lawyer his junior? Why not vice-versa? Should not the monkey swap places with the organ grinder?" I have no answer to that question; it, ies in the deeper recesses of the Prime Minister's mind.
Every time a Cabinet reshuffle is mooted the name of the hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe is on every tongue, save that of the Prime Minister. Indeed, there are times when I suspect that the sole object of ministerial changes is to show that Cabinet status is beyond our Ken. Instead, he is stuck with being one of a pair, like the ugly sisters, Jekyll and Hyde, the pit and pendulum, tonsils and adenoids or, more appropriately, Burke and Hare, the notorious body snatchers.
I have to admit that as a pair they are effective. The hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe puts a bad case well and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield issues a slick press statement—no trendy gimmick is beneath him. When he was Secretary of State for Transport he said he wanted to do a Freddie Laker on the buses, and, to give credit where it is due, he did, because over 40 million fewer rural passenger miles were covered in the year that followed his Transport Act. Villagers up and down the country waved goodbye to their last bus.
Now these master minds have set about the nation's health, but their task has over-taxed even their skills. At Question Time last week they even argued that the gross domestic product had gone up since they got in. But no phoney figures, no creative accountancy, no satistical sleight of hand can cover up their attack on the National Health Service. All over the county hospitals are closing, wards are empty and promised projects have been shelved.
The people of London are told that their hospital provision must be cut so that other areas can catch up. The Trent region is supposed to be the major beneficiary, but anyone who goes there, as [did a fortnight ago, will find that it is the same story there. Hospitals are threatened with closure, wards are empty and projects are held hack. In Nottingham, which serves the Minister's own Rushcliffe constituency, the university hospital is built, but wards have never been brought into use, not because nobody needs them—there are nearly 11,000 people on hospital waiting lists in Nottingham—but because the Minister


will not find the money, and even a plastic surgery unit for children has had to be postponed. All over the country the story is the same.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: The Trent area happens to be in my constituency and, for the record, it has been given extra staff in the hon. Member's so-called "cuts" and has a £25 million new hospital opening in Chesterfield next year, for which extra staff are being provided so that it will be opened.

Mr. Dobson: There are certainly bits of the country where new hospitals are opening, but there are other parts of the country where others are closing and there are even more where they are being kept empty. All over the country the story is the same, yet Ministers seem not to have noticed because, safe in their comfortable offices, they proclaim paper triumphs and ignore the facts in the field. In short, they behave like first world war generals. In one way they are even worse than those generals because at least the generals used to pay tribute to their troops. Not so the modern Tory. Scarcely a day goes by but one or other of them says that the National Health Service is inefficient or, wasteful or could do with fewer staff.
When a former bankrupt who apparently advises the Prime Minister got space in Rupert Murdock's Times to vilify those who work in the health Service, we looked in vain to health Ministers to defend their staff from such attacks. But loyalty to people who do the work has never been a Tory trait. They never tell the truth about our National Health Service. For all its faults, it is the cheapest and most efficient in the developed world. Instead, they set out to hamper and maim it. If anybody from the National Health Service criticises them, Ministers dismiss their critics as representing a "vested interest". By this definition life-long dedication to Health Service patients counts as a vested interest. Instead, Ministers promote the interests of cheapjack outfits that claim they can do the laundry or cleaning better and cheaper than the present staff. The only way those private firms could do that is by lowering standards and paying wages even lower than the present poverty level wages paid to National Health Service and ancillary staff.

Dr. Mawhinney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier in the debate your predecessor in the Chair encouraged hon. Members on both sides to speak shortly and to the point, because a number of hon. Members would not otherwise have an opportunity to speak. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has spoken for nine of his 25 minutes without tangentially approaching the Bill. Do you have the power, Mr. Speaker, to ask him to sit down so that hon. Members who wish to talk about the Bill may have an opportunity to do so?

Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately I do not have power to ask any hon. Member to sit down. I think that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was about to deal with the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Dobson: We needed a little context in which to consider the Bill. Ministers are promoting private companies, not least because the Benches behind them are thick—thick with hon. Members with a direct financial interest.
When we consider the proposals in the Bill about glasses, it is as well to remember what happens now. If one wants new or replacement glasses, one goes to a qualified optician for a sight test, for which the optician gets an £8 fee, and one then buys the glasses from that optician or another one. The Government propose to change that by letting any Tom, Dick or Harry sell glasses. Even more important, they propose to abolish the sale of NHS glasses, both frames and lenses.
When introducing the Bill, the Secretary of State justified his proposals largely on the strength of the report from the Office of Fair Trading. However, the House should know that the OFT did not contemplate for one moment getting rid of NHS glasses for sale, and the National Consumer Council's support for the measure has been withdrawn as a result of that change.
At present, 80 per cent. of people who use glasses get NHS glasses and nearly 40 per cent. get NHS frames. In other words, given a free choice most people opt for the NHS goods because they are cheap and the quality is guaranteed. Indeed, during the past four years even the number and proportion of adults getting NHS frames has increased. The problem, said the Secretary of State, was the overpricing of some private frames. His solution is to get rid of the cheapest glasses on the market, those provided by the NHS. With logic like that, no wonder he loses arguments in Cabinet.
Children and the poor will still be able to get glasses on the NHS, at least for the time being. However, they will be the only people who can get them. As other hon. Members have pointed out, NHS glasses will soon become an obvious badge of poverty. In any case, many poor people, including two thirds of pensioners, are not entitled to free glasses. This move is a direct and deliberate attack on the NHS, a move away from a health care service to a commercial rip-off. Before long, the provision of NHS glasses, even to children and the poor, will also be abolished. Instead, vouchers will be issued which they will take to Woolworths to be handed over in front of the prying eyes of other shoppers as yet another humiliating public indication of their poverty.
What of the people who do not get free glasses but who get a sight test and a prescription and then want to buy their glasses? At present they get the prescription read, interpreted and made up by experts, people who know about eyes and lenses, who can fit a frame and who have had training. That offers massive consumer protection. That is especially important with glasses, not just because they affect the eyesight and eyes but because lay people cannot judge what they are getting except in terms of the appearance of the frames. Often it is only afterwards that discomfort or blurred vision shows up.
It should be remembered, therefore, that cost is not the only thing by which to judge. Yet the only consumer protection that the Secretary of State proposes is under the Sale of Goods Act. When he made his original statement to the House he promised that any further protection for the consumer would be included in the Bill. As none is included, presumably he believes that none is required.
Let us take a practical approach and consider what will happen. After a sight test, people will be able to go to any shop selling glasses. I do not wish to insult everybody who works in shops. Most are helpful. However, many are not and some are scarcely fit to sell cans of paint or Christmas


cards. In goes the patient complete with prescription—hands it over to the shop assistant. Then what? Here is a genuine prescription which I will read out:
Right eye—9·0 dioptre sphere— 1·25 dioptre cyclinder with an axis of 110 degrees with a prism of 1 prism dioptre base down.
Left eye + 6·25 dioptre sphere, + 1·5 dioptre cyclinder with an axis of 60 degrees—interpupilary distance 66 millimetres.
Will a shop without trained staff be able to cope with that? Could an untrained person make sure that such a prescription is properly made up and fitted? The 66 mm. mentioned is the distance between the pupils of each eye. How will they measure that—with the measure that they use for inside leg measurements or will they just guess?
Let us charitably assume that the Minister of State, who is a university-educated barrister, is intelligent and helpful. Could he cope? I have here a prescription given to me following a sight test that I had yesterday. It is a simple prescription, and it says:
Right eye +0·5 dioptre cylinder with an axis of 180 degrees.
Left eye +0·5 dioptre sphere, +0·5 dioptre cylinder with an axis of 10 degrees.
Does the Minister know what that means? I shall pass the prescription to him so that he can examine it. Could he make up some glasses for me? Perhaps his right hon. and hon. Friends who know so much about this could help him. Perhaps he will ask his officials to advise.
After all, if we extend the principle that anyone who can read can dispense glasses, some people may even conclude that anyone who can read a Civil Service brief could be a Minister. There is no knowing where the process of deskilling will end. It is no use the Minister saying that this is unfair. After all, he is the one who claims to know more about dispensing glasses than the whole of the optical profession and also, for that matter, practically everyone who has spoken from the Government Benches today.
More seriously, does the Minister not accept that a skill in dispensing helps protect the public? What is more, does he not accept that if prescriptions are required, few, if any, pairs of ready-made glasses will ever be sold and such glasses are the only ones cheaper than NHS glasses? At present, NHS frames cost between £2·05 and £13·05. NHS single vision lenses range from £4 to £8·85 and bifocal lenses from £9·20 to £15·50. In 1982, on the other hand, the average price of a pair of old-fashioned style, private, single-vision glasses was £43 and £57 for private bifocals. So someone whose eyesight is deteriorating and who needs more high-powered lenses or bifocals can expect under the new system that new lenses will cost at least £25 more than they must pay for them at present. So much for the cuts in price for most people.
Perhaps in winding up the ever-talented Minister will come up with a case that he has found in economic history where prices fell as a result of the cheapest top-quality goods being taken off the market. But I must warn him that if he does he will confound the theoretical basis of the market economy preached by every right-wing economist from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman, so he had better not do so, or the Prime Minister will demote him this time.
What about the proposal to permit advertising? Whatever other effects that will have, it will give an advantage to the few large opticians and the multiple stores that do not currently sell glasses, to the disadvantage of the small firms. That means that, yet again, the Tory Government will have put small firms out of business—

especially those that serve the country areas that the Government claim to cherish. They will suffer like the rural buses, post offices and pharmacies.
Sight testing and eye examination are still vital parts of our National Health Service. If a small optician's shop loses its dispensing trade, it will need to charge higher fees for sight testing or be driven out of business. That sight testing service will be less accessible, and many people's eyesight will suffer.
In short, the Government's proposals on glasses will reduce choice, abandon consumer protection, put up the price of glasses for most people and threaten the small optician's business, especially in rural areas -- and all because the Minister, as he reveals when he speaks privately to journalists, thinks of glasses as jewellery or fashion accessories. It may be that the dream world in which he lives is inhabited solely by Dame Edna Everage and Elton John, but in the real world his flippant ideas will damage a vital part of our health care system.
The next part of the Bill deals with family practitioner committees. Under the Joseph reforms of 1973, those were linked with area health authorities for administrative purposes as part of the effort to integrate the three parts of the National Health Service — hospitals, community health services and family practitioner services.
Having been a member of a family practitioner committee, I shall avoid making exaggerated claims about the degree of integration that has been achieved--in my experience it was small, and still less in the planning of primary care. But that does not mean that we should stop trying to achieve more, as was recommended by the Royal Commission on the National. Health Service.
Planning the nature and distribution of health provision in a geographical area does not make much sense if the service on which most people rely is not included. We believe, therefore, that the family practitioner services should become the responsibility of district health authorities. We must, however, recognise the concern of family practitioners about that idea. They fear that full integration would result in the hospitals—especially the teaching hospitals — gobbling up part of the funds presently allocated to family practitioners. They have seen what has happened to some community health services, and they do not want it to happen to them.
As a result, many family practitioners support the Government's proposal to move in quite the opposite direction by separating family practitioner committees from the district health authorities altogether. I believe that they are wrong. Changes within districts to give proper priority to care in the community will be required anyway, and Labour will give that a high priority. Some doctors appear to think that if they report directly to the DHSS they will somehow obtain more resources. Their idea is that getting closer to the source of funds will get them more funds—like standing nearer to the person who is doling out the treacle. I suspect that events will show that getting closer to the present incumbents at the DHSS may prove to be more like pressing closer and yet closer to a circular saw — a nerve-racking process leading to serious and possibly disastrous cuts.
That aside, we should ask what are the Government's priorities for primary care. Is it really their view that the most pressing need is the administrative separation of FPCs? I suggest that a massive investment in the Acheson proposals to strengthen primary care in the inner cities is a higher priority. The £9 million over four years promised


by the Secretary of State is a flea bite and an insult to those working to improve primary care. Ministers might also have paid more attention to legitimate criticisms of the effectiveness of FPCs in protecting patients. Perhaps the Government could even turn their attention to the cost of drugs dispensed by general practitioners.
Of course, there is another reason for the Government giving high priority to separating FPCs from the district health authorities. In future they propose that Ministers should appoint all the members of the FPCs. Local authority and district health authority nominees will now have to be appointed by the Secretary of State. That is yet another example of the Government taking more and more powers to interfere in local functions.
We must still ask why the Government are becoming so blatant in abandoning the old relationship between central and local government and undermining the independence and integrity of every public body. The answer is that a diffusing of power in a plural society makes it difficult for them to carry out their overall strategy of promoting the interests of the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and weak. Most public services were established to provide for the worst-off the services that the free market would never provide. As such, those services are an affront to this Government and that is why they are being cut.
Labour's NHS was based on two lines in Labour's election manifesto for 1945. Those two lines were:
the best health services should be available for all. Money must no longer be the passport to the best treatment".
For all its faults, our NHS is, after the monarchy, the most popular institution in this country. Over the past 35 years it has proved itself superior in practice, principle and morality to anything that the Tories have to offer. As our people recognise more and more the threat to the NHS, so they cherish it more and more. They are resisting the Tory efforts to smash the NHS. Our people recognise the inherent soundness of the Socialist principles on which it was founded, and in good time they will call for them to be extended to the rest of our society.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I was tempted by the opening words of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) to follow him into the byways along which he travelled before turning to the subject of the Bill. He reminded me of the prolonged and entertaining debates on bus de-licensing held at an earlier stage in the Government's career. To some extent, his remarks were relevant to our deregulating proposals for opticians. I well remember the hon. Gentleman passionately defending the licensing system in its every form, and deriding our suggestion that de-regulating express bus services might produce an improvement in services to the public. I invite him to go to any bus station and to look at the prices that the National Bus express service offers to those—mostly the less well off in our society—who wish to use it. He should look back and consider just how wrong he was then to defend a vested interest against our deregulating changes.
I am even more tempted to engage the hon. Gentleman in a debate about hospitals in my constituency. I understand that he recently took part in a march past my constituency surgery. At least, he addressed those who

took part. A mass rally was organised by the Rushcliffe and Nottingham Labour parties which comprised about 75 people. They marched past and went to listen to the hon. Gentleman. If he had attracted more people, he might have found out more about the health services in the Nottingham region. The unopened beds in the university hospital were a legacy of the Labour Government, who planned the building of a giant hospital, but failed to allow for the revenue with which to open it. The beds are now filling up rapidly and there is an agreement with the health authority to open almost all of the remaining beds in the next two years. The position is a vast improvement on that left by the Labour Government.
I thought that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras spent so long on other subjects—and the same must be true of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)—because he had not read or studied parts of the Bill. However, he eventually gave his reasons for opposing the part of the Bill that refers to the opticians' monopoly. The hon. Gentleman put his reservations—as did the hon. Member for Oldham, West — far less cogently than did my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones). My hon. Friend chose this debate in which to make his maiden speech. Of course, most Ministers would wish that newly elected Conservative Members did not make their maiden speeches on Bills about which they had the greatest reservations. However, it was obviously a sign of my hon. Friend's independence and characteristic of his approach that he should speak on a subject to which he has devoted considerable thought. He asked some very cogent questions, to which I shall attempt to give some answers, and we look forward to hearing from him again.
With sincere respect, may I say that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) made one of the best speeches that I have ever heard her make in the Chamber on one of the poorest cases. She frankly and fairly admitted that she was married to an optician. However, I think that it was loyalty to that profession, in which she has many friends, that led her to put its case so strongly. Of course we have not entered the debate lightly, and we are not—contrary to the claims—casting aside the public interest. However, we have reached the considered view that the present rules are badly in need of amendment, because they do not serve the public interest. Too many of them are a legacy of the past and serve only professional interests.
My introduction to the subject was rather curious. When I took up my present job I inherited discussions that had been going on for a long time about the possible introduction of a new NHS ladies' frame. The result was the introduction of a frame which, as I recently told a group of opticians, might be called the Kenneth Clarke memorial ladies' frame. I am told that it is selling fairly well, although it reminds one of the kind of spectacles that typists wore about 10 years ago if they were getting into the prime of life behind their typewriters.
The fault in the process was that I and my officials were presented with a rack of different frames which might be added to the NHS range and had to make a choice surrounded by people talking about the impact that it might have on their profession, their trade or their income from other parts of the service. I concluded that it was farcical for a Minister to be involved in gazing at racks of frames and trying to choose a Government approved type to be made available to ladies. I was not at all surprised to learn


that it had taken from the early 1950s until 1983 for the NHS to introduce a new frame. That experience led to the serious question of what on earth was the purpose in modern circumstances of having a state approved frame at a regulated price introduced in that way.
My other introduction was reading the report of the Office of Fair Trading, which was devoted to the consumer interest, and considering its arguments about advertising and competition. When we put the report to the General Optical Council and the optical professions, there was no response at all —despite the cogent evidence given for the findings—except to defend the status quo. That in turn led us to question the present professional rules.
Everyone seems to have declared an interest today. I belong to a profession which could in the past have been described as one of the most restrictive — the legal profession. Nevertheless, I am proud to belong to an independent profession and I defend the role of professions independent of Government in disciplining themselves and maintaining their own standards for the good of the public. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) pointed out, however, the public interest is the right test. The only purpose of professional rules governing groups of people admitted to a profession by qualification, as opticians are, is to protect the public against quacks. The sole purpose of the rules is to ensure that the standards delivered are those that the public expect in a serious area in which people may suffer real harm if the standards are not observed.
The purpose of professional rules should never be the benefit of the profession itself — that is, to restrict competition, to keep up its income or to protect a monopoly that is not itself justified. The Bar used to have some extremely curious rules. If one took a case off one's circuit one had to have a junior with one. There had to be two counsel whenever there was a silk on the case. In the quarter sessions at which I first practised, prosecution briefs for pleas of guilty cases were shared out two at a time to every member of the mess through what was known as the soup system. One had to pay a fee to another circuit if one took a case off circuit, and so on. All those rules existed in my time and all were abolished, although in every case abolition was resisted by some members of the profession who produced convoluted arguments claiming that the practices were in the public interest when clearly they were not.
Every profession should have its rules questioned occasionally, retaining only those which protect the public and sweeping away restrictive practices, of which professions may be just as guilty as trade unions or any other group with a common purpose.

Mrs. Knight: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend has noted that not only the opticians' associations but the British Medical Association has now come out against this part of the Bill.

Mr. Clarke: I heard what my hon. Friend said about the BMA's reservations about the advertising of professional services. I accept that certain aspects of professional services are not susceptible to advertising. The hypothetical example of a doctor advertising that he is the best for a particular complaint is not a practice that anyone is contemplating. Similarly, we are not contemplating allowing advertising for sight testing—the professional part of the service which ophthalmic

opticians provide. We shall not allow people to vie with each other about skills which the public have no means of judging. Advertising would not help that.
The restrictions on advertising which we propose to give the Privy Council power to modify go far beyond that. At the moment, there is no advertising which allows any comparison of prices to be made. There is no advertising which allows an optician to say what hours he will be open. There is no way in which a new optician who is opening a practice can let the public know, through the local press or on the radio, that he is opening. I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston and others who expressed reservations to address themselves to the totally restrictive rules which the General Optical Council proposes and which we want to give powers to the Privy Council to amend in view of the wealth of evidence in the Office of Fair Trading report. How it can be sustained that flat restrictions on any form of price advertising for services do not drive up prices and restrict competition I do not understand.
The more substantial reservations of my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston and others extended to the dispensing of glasses in some cases by non-opticians to adult patients. That is a more difficult consideration as we are effectively saying that the professional qualifications which at the moment apply to the sale of lenses, frames and any other type of optical appliance ought not to be restricted and that the monopoly should be weakened.
I return to the test which I apply and which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North said that we should apply to protect the health of patients and the public. A sight test is a health service. We are saying that in every case there should be a sight test which is carried out only by an ophthalmic optician or a doctor and that nobody should dispense glasses unless there has been a recent sight test on the basis of which a qualified professional person has given a prescription.
We have also said that the dispensing of glasses to children from a prescription should always be done by a qualified optician and that the dispensing of contact lenses should always be carried out by an optician. That is a list of circumstances in which we have identified the possibility of a health risk when the public could be harmed by provision of the wrong service. In those cases the retention of professional standards is essential to the public. However, the overwhelming majority of evidence suggests that, outside those circumstances, no damage can be done to the eyesight of an adult if there is an error in the dispensing of glasses.
If any adult buys a pair of glasses, puts them on, finds that he cannot see properly and does not realise that an error has been made and point out that error to the dispenser, I should be extremely surprised. There can be no damage to an adult if that happens. We are saying that adults should be free to choose whether to go to a dispensing optician—they are the only people who will be able to advertise themselves as opticians, as their title is protected--or to go to someone else who seems able to offer a decent service on the basis of being able to read a recent prescription and dispense glasses to the customer's satisfaction. The customer might want to compare prices before doing that.
If we wish, we can insist that the lenses are up to British standards. We can also consider standards for frames and examine the conditions that are imposed on those who sell. however, I do not believe that we should set up a new registration or licensing system and create a new


monopoly. I simply do not believe that it is necessary, once someone has had a recent sight test and therefore a prescription, to insist that dispensing to adults can be carried out only by a registered optician.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras went on about every Tom, Dick and Harry selling spectacles and people buying them out of suitcases in the street. The fact remains that if somebody wants to, he can try to buy a suit in a television repair shop. There are all sorts of silly things that people can do. Adults who have a recent prescription are sensible enough to make their own choice about where to go to have their glsses made up. Most members of the public will not think that a large reputable store offering a good service should be excluded from such activity.

Mr. Meadowcroft: If one takes a prescription to a chemist, one does not know whether the drugs have been made up in the right fashion until one has taken them and seen the consequences. Is not the parallel that one can take a prescription to a registered practitioner, in which case, why does not the Minister accept that opticians should be registered in the same way as chemists?

Mr. Clarke: If a chemist, or a non-chemist, supplied a badly prescribed drug one could die, have serious side effects or suffer from ill health. If an adult goes into a non-optician and the prescription is not properly made up, he will not suffer any ill health. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] Bland assertions in the face of all the medical evidence by those who interrupt are wrong. The overwhelming evidence is that no harm can result and one can tell, when one puts on the glasses, whether they are the same quality as before.
Those who defend this monopoly, and they do it with vigour, are trying to preserve for opticians a stronger monopoly than that which is available for doctors. We do not give doctors an absolute monopoly for all kinds of treatment. We do not purge the osteopaths and the chiropractors and the people to whom we allow adults to go with their symptoms. Certain things are reserved to a registered medical practitioner where there is a health risk. But the opticians have a more absolute monopoly on selling their goods than doctors have in giving advice on ill health and treatment.
The absolute right that opticians are protecting is not a professional service. They are the only people who can sell frames of any kind. Even the most expensive fashion frames, as worn by Dame Edna Everage and Elton John, can legally be sold only by registered dispensing opticians. There is no open competition. My hon Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) described the sort of healthy competition that he would wish to see. He hit the nail on the head, and will have the support of many members of the public.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras went back to his familiar theme that somehow we were damaging the NHS, and I refute that. We are getting the Government and the NHS out of the business of providing types of frames and glasses. We are protecting children and those on low incomes by providing them with free glasses and lenses for the foreseeable future, until such time as the market moves in the direction in which we think that it will, when there will be no need to exclude

them from the same choice as the rest of the public, and they will be reimbursed up to a set limit and able to choose as well.
The only change is that the better-off will pay more towards their glasses in the short term, but will gain the advantages of lower prices that competition will bring. Every subsidy to the general public for each pair of NHS glasses bought is at the moment about £5 a pair. In 81 per cent. of the cases, the subsidy is under £2 a pair and in 90 per cent. it is under £10 a pair. On average, glasses are bought about once every two years and those who pay more than that cover the small proportion of people who face any significant risk of increased payments. That will not be a significant feature.
We are keeping in the NHS what should be kept there —free sight tests for everyone, regardless of need. That is the major health element that the NHS provides. We are keeping a free service for those who may need it, such as children, although many children already wear non-NHS frames, and a free service for the exempt groups. There have always been exempt groups because there have always been charges for everyone else — charges introduced by a past Labour Government.
Those who are expressing worries are mainly concerned, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston conceded, with the effect on opticians. The effect on opticians of this move will be the same as the effect on bus operators of what we did before. Some will become more prosperous, some less. Some practices will grow and some will fail. I do not accept what my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) said—that only the big opticians will prosper. Those who prosper will be those who provide a good service for their customers both in price and quality. That is how it should be, and that is what we propose.
I want to say a brief word about the later parts of the Bill. First, I want to mention the family practitioner committees. We debated the subject in the last Parliament. This provision was excluded at the time of the general election, because the Labour party was then opposed to it.
Everyone agrees that the present arrangements for family practitioner committees are a nonsense. Everyone wanted to change the present arrangements, some in the direction of making the FPCs sub-committees of the district health authorities, others giving them the independent status that we have always preferred. We prefer the independent status, because we believe that the importance of primary health care within the NHS justifies putting it in the hands of specialist committees who will concentrate on that aspect of care alone. In that way, it will not run the risk of being subordinated to the interests of the much larger hospital service and all the lobbies within that service.
The Opposition chose to turn the whole debate into an argument about our power of appointment. At one stage, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) agreed with a proposition from his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that we would appoint people to the family practitioner committees as a compensation for failing to get knighthoods. They would not be such attractive appointments. Moreover, the appointments will be made from the names that are put forward by the professions, local authorities, health authorities and other bodies which my right hon. Friend will be obliged to consult. The Opposition want to prevent us making from appointments in that way, and want the committees to be


subordinate to the health authorities—the regional health authorities, in particular—all of whose members we already appoint. So that is not a significant point.
The more substantial points were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), in his thoughtful speech. He knows far more about primary care than most hon. Members know. May I give him the assurance that in making them employing authorities we are talking about their administrative staff and those whom they directly employ. We are not intending to alter the independent contractor status of the professions. I accept everything that my hon. Friend says about the need to encourage closer collaboration with the district health authorities. It is a danger that we have to face and avoid. If more than four district health authorities coincide in an FPC, we take powers either to enlarge the FPC or to use the seven members who can be nominated by the Secretary of State. In particular, we have set up a joint working group between the health authorities and the FPCs to advise us on how we can improve collaboration between the different parts of the service. That group will report early next year. We shall issue guidelines following that. We shall put the new FPCs on the joint consultative committees, get them involved in joint planning with health authorities and local authorities, and try to make them effective and responsive bodies that will play their part in a properly co-ordinated service.
Incidentally, we also intend to open up the proceedings of the FPCs to the same access by community health councils that those councils now have on behalf of consumers into the activities of district health authorities.
Finally, I want to mention the severe disablement allowance, which was the subject of a number of speeches. An extraordinary debate has been conducted against it, with an attack mounted on it by many people who are interested in the disabled, making it sound as though it were a retrograde step. In fact, it makes two worthwhile improvements to the present system. Everyone has had to acknowledge that they are improvements and a step in the right direction. The first improvement is that we are ending the discrimination against married women that was implicit in the household duties test, and we are doing that in a way that brings 20,000 more people into benefit, at an additional cost of £20 million, compared with the present situation. Disappointment we understand, and we must always expect worthwhile claims to be made for those who see other directions in which we might eventually go, but to say that those improvements are so disappointing that they must be opposed is quite extraordinary. It is particularly extraordinary when it comes from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who made the third Opposition Front Bench speech. After all, he was the one who introduced the household duties test, accurately described by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) as sexist.

Mr. Alfred Morris: rose—

Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman did not give way to me, so I shall not give way to him.

Mr. Morris: rose—

Mr. Clarke: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Minister is giving way.

Mr. Morris: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has been a Minister and he knows—

Mr. Morris: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Clarke: It is the household duties test—

Mr. Morris: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to sit down.

Mr. Clarke: The household duties test—

Mr. Morris: Give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Morris: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) to sit down.

Mr. Clarke: The household duties test—the right hon. Member does not wish to be reminded -- was introduced by him. It has—

Mr. Morris: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Clarke: The household duties test, which could perhaps be described as the Morris test, is now to be abolished amidst general satisfaction. There will be more gainers than losers as a result of the change.

Mr. Morris: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman was responsible, and it is humbug for him to oppose: a desirable, limited new benefit as if it were some kind of setback for the disabled and not a desirable feature of a very desirable Bill.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 188.

Division No. 112]
[10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Body, Richard


Alexander, Richard
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Amess, David
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Ancram, Michael
Braine, Sir Bernard


Arnold, Tom
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Ashby, David
Bright, Graham


Aspinwall, Jack
Brinton, Tim


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)]
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Browne, John


Baldry, Anthony
Bruinvels, Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bryan, Sir Paul


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Beggs, Roy
Buck, Sir Antony


Bellingham, Henry
Budgen, Nick


Berry, Sir Anthony
Bulmer, Esmond


Best, Keith
Burt, Alistair


Bevan, David Gilroy
Butcher, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Butler, Hon Adam


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Butterfill, John






Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Carttiss, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Knowles, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Knox, David


Chope, Christopher
Lamont, Norman


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Lang, Ian


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lawrence, Ivan


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lester, Jim


Clegg, Sir Walter
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Cockeram, Eric
Lightbown, David


Colvin, Michael
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Conway, Derek
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Coombs, Simon
Lord, Michael


Cope, John
Lyell, Nicholas


Corrie, John
McCrindle, Robert


Couchman, James
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Critchley, Julian
Macfarlane, Neil


Crouch, David
MacGregor, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Dickens, Geoffrey
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Dicks, T.
Maclean, David John.


Dorrell, Stephen
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Dover, Denshore
McQuarrie, Albert


Dunn, Robert
Madel, David


Durant, Tony
Major, John


Dykes, Hugh
Malins, Humfrey


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Malone, Gerald


Eggar, Tim
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Emery, Sir Peter
Mates, Michael


Evennett, David
Mather, Carol


Eyre, Reginald
Maude, Francis


Fallon, Michael
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Farr, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Favell, Anthony
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Merchant, Piers


Fletcher, Alexander
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fookes, Miss Janet
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Forth, Eric
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Fox, Marcus
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Moate, Roger


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fry, Peter
Monro, Sir Hector


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Montgomery, Fergus


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moore, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Goodlad, Alastair
Moynihan, Hon C.


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mudd, David


Grant, Sir Anthony
Murphy, Christopher


Greenway, Harry
Nelson, Anthony


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Neubert, Michael


Grist, Ian
Newton, Tony


Grylls, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Gummer, John Selwyn
Nicholson, J.


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Normanton, Tom


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Norris, Steven


Hampson, Dr Keith
Onslow, Cranley


Harris, David
Oppenheim, Philip


Hayes, J.
Osborn, Sir John


Hayward, Robert
Ottaway, Richard


Heddle, John
Page, John (Harrow W)


Henderson, Barry
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Parris, Matthew


Hicks, Robert
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Pawsey, James


Holt, Richard
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hooson, Tom
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hordern, Peter
Pollock, Alexander


Howard, Michael
Porter, Barry


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'Idford)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunter, Andrew
Powley, John


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Jessel, Toby
Price, Sir David


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Proctor, K. Harvey





Raffan, Keith
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Terlezki, Stefan


Renton, Tim
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Rhodes James, Robert
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thornton, Malcolm


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Thurnham, Peter


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rowe, Andrew
Tracey, Richard


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Trippier, David


Ryder, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sackville, Hon Thomas
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Sayeed, Jonathan
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Waddington, David


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Walden, George


Shersby, Michael
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Silvester, Fred
Waller, Gary


Sims, Roger
Ward, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Warren, Kenneth


Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)
Watson, John


Speed, Keith
Watts, John


Speller, Tony
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Spence, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Spencer, D.
Wheeler, John


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Whitfield, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Whitney, Raymond


Squire, Robin
Wiggin, Jerry


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wilkinson, John


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stern, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wolfson, Mark


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Woodcock, Michael


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stokes, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stradling Thomas, J.



Tapsell, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Rt Hon John David
Mr. David Hunt and


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Clay, Robert


Anderson, Donald
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cohen, Harry


Ashdown, Paddy
Coleman, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Conlan, Bernard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Barnett, Guy
Corbett, Robin


Barron, Kevin
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Cowans, Harry


Beith, A. J.
Craigen, J. M.


Bell, Stuart
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Cunningham, Dr John


Bidwell, Sydney
Dalyell, Tam


Blair, Anthony
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Boyes, Roland
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'!)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Deakins, Eric


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dixon, Donald


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Dobson, Frank


Bruce, Malcolm
Dormand, Jack


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Douglas, Dick


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Dubs, Alfred


Campbell, Ian
Duffy, A. E. P.


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Canavan, Dennis
Eadie, Alex


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Eastham, Ken


Cartwright, John
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)


Clarke, Thomas
Evans, John (St. Helens N)






Fatchett, Derek
Mikardo, Ian


Faulds, Andrew
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fisher, Mark
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Flannery, Martin
Nellist, David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
O'Brien, William


Forrester, John
O'Neill, Martin


Foster, Derek
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foulkes, George
Paisley, Rev Ian


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Park, George


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Parry, Robert


Freud, Clement
Patchett, Terry


George, Bruce
Pavitt, Laurie


Godman, Dr Norman
Pendry, Tom


Golding, John
Pike, Peter


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Prescott, John


Hardy, Peter
Radice, Giles


Harman, Ms Harriet
Randall, Stuart


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Redmond, M.


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Haynes, Frank
Robertson, George


Heffer, Eric S.
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rooker, J. W.


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Howells, Geraint
Rowlands, Ted


Hoyle, Douglas
Ryman, John


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


John, Brynmor
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Skinner, Dennis


Kennedy, Charles
Smith, C.(1sl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Kirkwood, Archibald
Snape, Peter


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Soley, Clive


Lamond, James
Spearing, Nigel


Leadbitter, Ted
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W isles)


Leighton, Ronald
Stott, Roger


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Strang, Gavin


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Straw, Jack


Litherland, Robert
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Loyden, Edward
Tinn, James


McCartney, Hugh
Torney, Tom


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McKelvey, William
Wareing, Robert


McNamara, Kevin
Weetch, Ken


McTaggart, Robert
White, James


McWilliam, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Madden, Max
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Marek, Dr John
Wilson, Gordon


Martin, Michael
Winnick, David


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Woodall, Alec


Maxton, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Maynard, Miss Joan



Meacher, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Meadowcroft, Michael
Mr. Allen McKay and


Michie, William
Mr. John Home Robertson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Ways and Means may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Goodlad.]

Orders of the Day — HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Health and Social Security Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in consequence of the provisions of the said Act, including any increase attributable to those provisions in sums so payable under any other Act. — [Mr. Goodlad.]

WAYS AND MEANS

HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY

Resolved.

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Health and Social Security Bill, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums which, under the Social Security Act 1975, are to be taken as paid towards the cost of the National Health Service in Great Britain.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Social Security

The Minister for Social Security (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I beg to move,
That the draft Social Security (Contributions, Re-rating) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following motions:
That the draft Social Security (Treasury Supplement to Contributions) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 6) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.

Dr. Boyson: The draft orders to which the motions refer, together with the Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 5) Regulations 1983 which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made on 14 November, are the result of what is known as the contributions re-rating exercise for 1984–85. The Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 6) and the Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 7) Regulations 1983, the latter of which my right hon. Friend made on 15 November, also deal with the amount of contributions to be paid next year. With the leave of the House, therefore, I shall discuss these five instruments together.
We have had a social security day today. Last night we discussed housing benefits for three hours. A statutory instrument was discussed in Committee this morning. This evening we have debated the Health and Social Security Bill. Now we are to discuss the re-rating of national insurance contributions.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: rose—

Dr. Boyson: I shall not allow myself to be tempted to tangle with the hon. Gentleman.
As hon. Members will know, the Social Security Act 1975 requires my right hon. Friend to carry out a review each year of the general level of earnings. At the same time, he reviews the state of the national insurance fund, as he is empowered to do by the same Act. The purpose of this exercise in good housekeeping is to make sure that the money coining into the fund is sufficient to pay for benefits whilst maintaining an appropriate level of balance to guard against unexpected adverse contingencies. The report of the Government Actuary on the effect of the proposed changes was laid before the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 17 November, as required by the Act.
The first changes that I will discuss are those to the lower and upper earnings limits for employees' and employers' contributions. The Social Security Pensions Act 1975 requires the lower earnings limit to be equal to, or no more than 49p below, the basic pension rate, and the upper limit to be between 6·5 and 7·5 times that rate. A pension rate of £34·05 next year therefore points unavoidably to a lower earnings limit of £34 per week, if we are to follow the usual practice of dealing in multiples of 50p. The upper earnings limit permits a little more discretion: a figure of up to £255 per week is possible. However, an increase to £250 would be more in line with the movement of earnings. This would be 7·3 times the basic pension rate, towards the top of the permitted range of 6·5 and 7·5 times. This is, therefore, what is proposed.
Of course, most people have earnings between the lower and upper earnings limits and so will be virtually unaffected by these changes; their contributions will rise only in so far as their wages rise. The contributions of employees with weekly earnings of over £235 per week will increase by up to £1·35 per week—up to £1·07 per week in the case of contracted-out employees. For married women and widows paying at the reduced rate on earnings of more than £235 a week, the maximum weekly increase will be 57p.
Similarly, employers will have to pay increased contributions for employees on high earnings; the maximum increase will be £1·71 in respect of not contracted-out employees and £1·17 for others.
It will be most convenient for hon. Members if I now deal with the No. 6 and No. 7 Amendment Regulations, the only other instruments which directly affect class 1 contributions. As hon. Members will know, lower contribution rates are payable for certain mariners and for serving members of Her Majesty's Forces because of the particular features of their employment which affect their national insurance position. For various reasons, including the falling numbers of claims to sickness benefit generally and the introduction of statutory sick pay from 1 April this year, it is proposed, through these instruments, to adjust the levels of abatement in the light of advice from the Government Actuary. I should add, in case any hon. Member should raise the question, that the social security advisory council is content with these changes.

Mr. Rooker: Social security advisory committee.

Dr. Boyson: I am always glad to be helped by the hon. Gentleman, whom we have now lost from social security. His advice was always helpful to me on these occasions, but he does not seem to recognise gratitude when it is offered to him. We are living in sorry times.
I come now to the self-employed. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman comes into that category. Members will be aware that self-employed people pay their contributions in two parts, the flat-rate class 2 contribution and the profits-related class 4 contribution. As it is not proposed to increase the class 1 rate, it follows that no increase is needed in the class 4 rate, which is derived from it. The profits limits for class 4 contributions rise automatically each year like the earnings limits for class 1 contributions. The figures proposed for next year are £3,950 and £13,000, the latter figure being 52 times the upper earning limit.
The formula for determining the class 2 rate gives a figure of £4·80 a week. However, for the last two years we have set the rate at a figure 20p below that given by the formula and we propose to continue this practice this year with a weekly rate of £4·60. The small earnings exception from class 2 liability also rises automatically —in this case from £1,775 to £1,850 a year.
The proposed voluntary class 3 rate is, as usual, 10p below the class 2 rate, giving a figure of £4·50 a week from next April.
The last change which is being proposed is the reduction in the Treasury supplement from 13 per cent. to 11 per cent. The Government Actuary's report shows the estimated effect of this and the other changes under discussion on the national insurance fund. The Government Actuary estimates that the balance in the fund at the end of 1983–84 will be £4,280 million and that this


figure will increase to £4,480 million by the end of 1984–85 if we make the proposed changes. In other words, the balance at the end of 1983–84 will represent 21·7 per cent. of benefit expenditure during the year and a year later the equivalent figure will be 21·6 per cent. Both those figures are comfortably above the minimum level, of one sixth of the benefit expenditure, recommended by the Government Actuary.
The reduction in the Treasury supplement will also mean that national insurance contributors will bear a slightly increased proportion of the cost of contributory benefits. This I stress, because it was a point made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in the debate last year. I believe that he will speak for the Opposition this year, his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) having moved to become Treasury spokesman to keep an eye on him.

Mr. Rooker: His minder.

Dr. Boyson: Yes, his minder, as the Opposition recognise. However, when we look at all social security benefit expenditure, the balance in recent years has been moving from the contributor towards the taxpayer. Over recent years we have moved to more non-contributory benefits. The hon. Member for Birkenhead raised the point last year. He is always consistent, which is why I am stressing this point, otherwise, he will ask me questions towards the end. He may still, but I make that point now.
It means that 50 per cent. of total social security expenditure comes from the state as against only 45·1 per cent. in the last year of the Labour Government in 1978–79. In 1984–85 we are reducing this to 49 per cent., a reduction of 1 per cent. It will still mean that the proportion of total social security expenditure that will come directly from the state and not the contributors will be 3-9 percentage points higher than in 1978–79. I mention this because I am sure the hon. Member will take the matter up at some later date, if not tonight. I wish the hon. Member would listen because I always find his arguments interesting and stimulating, and it helps if we are talking about the same thing from time to time. I would be delighted to debate on some platform the question where we are as compared with where Beveridge intended us to be because, with all this contributory and non-contributory argument, I can think of no one better to debate it with than the hon. Gentleman.
We may need a debate as to how the percentage provided by the state compared with the percentage intended by Beveridge. The share covered by the state has greatly increased since the 1960s from 34·9 per cent. in 1965–66 at the time of the Labour Government to 50 per cent. in 1983–84. All we shall do by this 2 per cent. reduction in the Treasury supplement is to reduce to 49 per cent. the amount coming from the state as its share of the global expenditure on social security. One major difference is that we now have an openly pay-as-you-go scheme as against the actuarially based scheme intended at times by Beveridge, and there has been a massive growth in Exchequer-finance expenditure.
Those are the changes that we are proposing. For the first time in several years, it is not proposed to increase the class 1 or class 4 contribution rate, and I believe this will be as welcome to the majority of hon. Members present as it is to employers and employees.
The two orders and three sets of regulations are the result of a necessary exercise in care and maintenance to

keep the national insurance contributory system up to date and to make sure that money is available to pay for benefits. It is on this basis that I commend them to the House.

Mr. Frank Field: Although the House is debating three orders, I wish to concentrate on the one that changes the Treasury supplement. While concentrating on one order, I wish to show that it forms part of a consistent pattern under the Government of bringing forward changes in national insurance regulations that have shifted the burden of taxation to poorer people and those on average earnings from those who are richer. Whereas in this Parliament and the last Parliament it does not have the sort of appeal it used to have on the Government Benches, I also wish to show, by looking at the orders tonight and those that have preceded it from 1979, that they all helped to undermine three key election pledges made by Conservative Governments not only in 1983 but in 1974.
In those two manifestos the Government gave three clear commitments. One was to increase the incentive to work. I wish to argue that these orders, along with other orders the House has considered since 1979, have decreased the incentive to work. I wish to argue that, far from fulfilling the election manifesto pledge of decreasing taxation, the orders the House is now considering and other orders that it has considered since 1979 have increased the burden of taxation. Far from meeting the Conservative manifesto pledge of giving value for money, these measures and previous ones give the lie to that pledge.
I said at the outset that I would concentrate on the Treasury supplement. Changes in that supplement have shifted the burden of taxation from different groups in the population and have resulted in a decrease in the incentive to work. The Minister said that he would like to debate at some time the position that we have reached today compared with the position which Beveridge thought we should have reached today. As we cannot debate these matters tonight for more than an hour and a half, I will limit my comments to where Beveridge thought we should be today in respect of the Treasury supplement.
Surprisingly, given the detail of the Beveridge report, it contained no specific figure for the Treasury supplement in the years following the establishment of the welfare state. There was a figure, however, in the White Paper that followed the Beveridge report. It was suggested in that that by 1975 — there were no figures beyond 1975 — the Treasury supplement should be about 67 per cent. of total national insurance expenditure.
In the last year of Labour Government, the Treasury supplement made up 18 per cent. of the national insurance fund. If this instrument is approve tonight, the Government will have reduced that share from the Treasury to 11 per cent. Thus, more money is to be raised by way of national insurance contributions, and of all the forms of taxation that we have, that is the most regressive in the British fiscal system, because the threshold is so low. For a worker with children, the national insurance threshold is below the supplementary benefit poverty line and way below the eligibility point for family income supplement.
It is regressive also in the sense that national insurance contributions are collected in the way in which income tax used to be collected under the old exemption system; as


soon as one passes the threshold, not just additional income but all one's income becomes taxable. As one passes the £34 threshold, not just the additional £ 1 becomes liable to the national insurance surcharge, but every £1, including the first that one earned. If that were not enough to make this form of taxation regressive, we have not only a low threshold, but a ceiling on contributions as a result of which, as contributions are increased, those on the highest earnings pay relatively less than those on lower earnings.
The Government are therefore seeking permission tonight for a decrease in the Treasury supplement, and as that process has continued since 1979, the Government have had to seek increases in the rates of contribution. They made much of the fact that the rates would not be increased, but it is instructive to consider the way in which they have changed the balance, not just between the Treasury contribution and those who are making contributions as employers and employees, but also between the employer and employee.
When the Conservatives assumed office, the employer's contribution was 10 per cent. It now stands at 10·45 per cent., and if one adds in the surcharge, the cost to employers of the national insurance fund has fallen. I hope that hon. Members, including my hon. Friends, will say that that is a welcome development, as would anybody who is concerned with increasing the number of jobs in society. But is it fair to shift the burden not only from the Treasury to contributors but within the contributors' sector, from employers to employees, in the way that the Government have? When the Conservatives came to office, the national insurance contribution for those of us in work was 6·5 per cent. Today it stands at 9 per cent.
That is not the end of the sorry tale. The Government have set out to raise a greater percentage of all revenue from this most regressive of all forms of taxation. When the Conservatives came to office in 1979, for each £100 of taxation raised by other forms of taxation, the national insurance fund raised an additional £64. If these instruments are approved, for each £100 of revenue raised by all other forms of taxation, the national insurance fund will contribute an additional £70. That is the magnitude of the shift in the burden of taxation to the national insurance fund. The result is that the level of taxation has increased for most income groups. but especially for the poor. The national insurance contribution rates have increased from 6·5 per cent. to 9 per cent. The Government have helped to deepen the poverty trap, and have thus gone back on their election pledges of 1983 and 1979 to increase incentives to work.
I hope, therefore, that I have established my first point. By looking at the shift in the burden of taxation I have tried to explain who is contributing a greater proportion to the national insurance fund today than in 1979. That is not the entire tale behind the three instruments. Along with higher contributions have gone lower benefits, and sometimes no benefits at all. That policy hardly squares with the promises made at the 1979 and 1983 elections that there would be value for money. That was to be one of the key principles of Tory policy.
I shall briefly remind the House why, on the one hand, we have been paying more into the national insurance fund, and how on the other hand we are getting fewer benefits as a result of the increase in taxation. Some

benefits have been scrapped altogether. The industrial injury benefit and the earnings-related supplement to short-term national insurance benefits have disappeared. The invalidity pension and the maternity and sickness benefits have been cut in value, although the Government prefer the word "abatement". Labour's pledge to increase long-term benefits in line with earnings of prices has gone. If that pledge had been held by the Government, the national insurance pension for a single person would stand not at £34 but at £37.
The second point that I have sought to establish is that those of us who are paying higher contributions throughout the country have received lower benefits. That hardly squares with the Government's election promises to give value for money.
Perhaps we should be making an even more serious charge against the Government. The national insurance contribution increases have resulted in practically the whole of the increase in the tax burden since 1979. We well recall the pledges in both elections that the Government's aim was to decrease taxation.
An interesting reply was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) recently, when he asked what the burden of taxation was on different income groups since 1979. I do not think that I am misrepresenting the reply when I say that it showed that practically all groups had seen an increase in the burden of taxation since 1979, except the very rich. After seeing the answer, I asked the Library to re-work my hon. Friend's answer and to establish what the burden of taxation would be if the national insurance contribution of those in work had been not increased but held at the level when the Labour Government left office. Once those calculations are to hand, one sees that the Tory Government would have fulfilled their election pledge of reducing taxation not just for the very rich but for all groups, especially those with families, had there been no increase in the national insurance contributions since 1979. We are debating three instruments in a series dating from 1979, which have undermined one of the key planks of Government policy—to reduce the burden of taxation not just for the very rich but for every worker in the land.
I end my speech by referring to another parliamentary reply. that given to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who wanted to know what had been the extent of tax cuts since 1979 on those earning more than £30,000 per year. The Government's reply was staggering. Each of the very rich in our society has had a reduction in his tax burden since 1979 of £9,260, compared with an increase in the burden of taxation—largely through the national insurance contribution increases—that has hit virtually every other worker.
The Opposition will vote against the instruments because they increase the tax burden on those least able to bear it—those people whose benefits have also been cut. If our appeal to shift the burden of taxation from the weakest in our society does not appeal to Conservative Members, I hope that they will recognise that these instruments, which are part of a pattern introduced since 1979, undermine three crucial Conservative election pledges.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): It is absurd for the Opposition to argue that simply because a Labour Government levied a wholly unrealistic and unreasonable


rate of tax we should do realistic sums based on how much it has been reduced. There is no doubt that the higher rates of tax levied in Britain have been levied by Labour Governments — they were absurdly high, and much higher than those levied by our more successful competitors abroad.
I am one of many Conservative Members who wait for the second part of Conservative policy to come home to roost. We promised to do our utmost to release the inventiveness of our people. We can do that by ensuring that the large numbers who are now bravely venturing into working for themselves can look forward to a tax and insurance package that makes it profitable for them to be self-employed—especially in the early years when it is difficult for them to make ends meet and to keep their heads above water. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to assure us that he will look closely at the position of the self-employed, especially those at the lower end of the income scale.
We have waited rather a long time for the fulfilment of the pledge of the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would release Britain from its dependence on Truck. Many people receive benefits in kind. When all our social services are under the pressure of the need to reduce expenditure, we should look closely at the practice whereby people receive benefits in kind to an extent which distorts the economy and makes it difficult for people to make the choices about how they spend their money that are essential to a healthy society. If we did that, we could release the spare resources to redeem the pledge of the Chancellor—which gave me great pleasure—that his first priority would be to take those on the lowest incomes out of tax altogether. That is overdue. Far too many people are trapped in tax and national insurance contributions that only deepen the poverty trap. On that point, I accept the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). Our biggest problem is the extraordinary disincentive to work. It is not that people willingly give up working in exchange for a life on the state. Many of us know from our daily constituency correspondence that people are forced to make an entirely rational decision to stop work.
There was a watershed in the history of British society when it became apparent that a penny on income tax would yield more than increasing the rates of higher taxation. Similarly, there will be another watershed if tax is removed from the poorest in our society, so that many of them can return to the labour market in a Conservative way that is good for human dignity. I very much hope that this necessary move tonight is only one step towards redeeming the pledge that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave in his autumn statement, when he said that before long a substantial number of people would be removed from tax altogether.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am glad to speak after the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). I shall not take up his remarks, save to say that he has a point about the burden being endured by the self-employed. There are not many obvious increases in the orders, but the burden, particularly of national insurance contributions, has become unacceptably high.
I should like to ask the Government some questions about the Government Actuary's report. I am not experienced in perusing such documents, but in table 2,

on page 4, there seems to he a quite significant increase in the cost of administering the national insurance fund. The administration costs for 1983–84 are there shown as £707 million, while the administration costs for 1984–85 are shown as £761 million. That is a significant increase of more than £1 million per week, if my understanding of table two is correct, perhaps it is not an increase of £54 million, and my ignorance and inexperience have led me to make a mistake. However, if I am right, it is an astonishing sum of money, I hope that the Minister will deal with that point.
I confess, again, that I am relatively inexperienced in interpreting the figures. It seems that the surpluses shown in table 2—£257 million in 1983–84 and £200 million in 1984–85 — represent considerable sums. There is a substantial balance in fund of £4,280 million for 1983–84, and a substantial projected balance of £4,480 million for 1984–85. I am aware that the Government Actuary has recommended that something like 16·6 per cent. of the total benefit expenditure must be held in reserve, and that is only sensible. However, it has been said that we are on target for 21·6 or 21·7 per cent. of benefit expenditure. That gives a leeway of 5 per cent., which is a lot of money in this context. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that.
I shall follow the line taken by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who showed in exemplary fashion that the system of taxation under discussion today is regressive. I believe that it is wrong to shift the burden further from the Exchequer to the contributors and to place a greater burden on employees than on employers. The hon. Gentleman certainly proved to my satisfaction that over the distance there has been an increase in the total taxation burden for all groups when national insurance fund contributions are included.
Since 1979, class 1 contributions have increased from 6·5 per cent. to 9 per cent. The Minister may try today to make a virtue of the fact that there is no further increase, but he must accept that the increase since 1979 is not insignificant.
Like the hon. Member for Mid-Kent, I appreciate that there is pressure on people in self-employed classes 2 and 4. The Government would do well to consider not just saying complacently that they are glad not to have to increase the contributions further but actually looking for ways to reduce them.
As the hon. Member for Birkenhead said, the Treasury supplement has already fallen from 18 per cent. to 13 per cent. and the Government now seek a further reduction to 11 per cent. that is an unfair sharing of the burden between contributors and taxpayers and a disincentive to work.
The reduction of the Treasury supplement from 18 per cent. to 11 per cent. before contracted-out contributions are taken into account will seriously affect pensions. The Select Committee on Social Services and the Social Security Advisory Committee in its second annual report, both highlighted the future problems for people with very little earnings-related contribution in their pensions. A gulf will inevitably open up between those people and younger people on earnings-related pensions as the present scheme matures. The oldest will thus be the poorest in terms of national insurance pensions until all those born before 1933 have died. How do the Government intend to deal with that problem if they wish to reduce the Treasury contribution to the national insurance fund still further?
On 30 November I attended a seminar organised by the Institute of Actuaries at which an actuary, Mr. G. T. Pepper, pointed out that the cost of national insurance pensions was expected to rise from about 9·5 per cent. of total wages and salaries to 19 per cent. in about 50 years. That is a 100 per cent. increase. At the same conference, the Government Actuary estimated that contributions would ultimately increase by about 50 per cent. That assumed a Treasury supplement of 13 per cent., however, and it is now proposed to reduce the supplement to 11 per cent. It also assumed unemployment at pre-recession levels.
As the Select Committee and the Social Security Advisory Committee stressed, a long-term problem will inevitably arise. There will be a serious shortfall in the long-term when pensions must be produced by the national insurance contributions system. Far from decreasing the amount of money that comes from the Treasury supplement, the Government might be forced to find resources and should be considering the long-term increase necessary to cover that problem if no other.
Because of the regressiveness of the proposals, the strength of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, the fact that we believe that the Government have reneged on their promises and the lack of long-term planning which we believe is necessary, we shall be voting in the No Lobby.

Dr. Boyson: I shall be short and sharp. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have put the arguments backwards and forwards. I am not sure that we have convinced one another, but at least we now know where the arguments lie.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) mentioned the cost of the national insurance contribution scheme. Its running costs have increased by about 8 per cent. this year as there are more demands on staffing and general costs. The balance in the fund at any time is really enough for only about 10 weeks' expenditure on benefits. That seems reasonable. Most businesses run on larger balances but that is what the Government Actuary has accepted and we work with him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) mentioned helping the self-employed. I received his message. Like the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), he mentioned the work traps. I remain in political sympathy on that matter with my hon. Friend who reminded our party of the direction which we should take. I am not sure that I find myself completely in sympathy with the hon. Member for Birkenhead although I respect his views. I appreciate the point about the regressiveness of taxation.
Under the Labour Government, the employer's contribution was increased from about 8·5 per cent. to 12·6 per cent., while the employee's contribution increased by only 1 per cent. We have balanced those contributions up, although that might not be popular with some Opposition Members. The incentive to work concerns both sides of the House. The Exchequer contribution to the fund is not the total extent of Government expenditure. If we reached a stage when 44 per cent. of the fund was paid for by the Government, it would be a burden.

Mr. Field: The contribution should have been increased.

Dr. Boyson: It has been increased by some pressures. If we listened to Opposition Members it would have been increased much more. The whole thing would have gone mad if we had followed their advice. I hate to say such things just before the Christmas season.
The change is simply a 2 per cent. reduction in the Exchequer's contribution to the national insurance fund and a restoration to 49 per cent., as opposed to 50 per cent., of the total amount of social security expenditure which is paid for by the Exchequer. Insurance benefits cannot be separated from the rest.
I have a list of 12 non-contributory benefits which have completely altered the balance. I shall not go through that list as it is coming up to 11 pm, which I understand is a significant time this evening. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the order, whether it be because of the strength of the arguments or because they want to enable the Opposition to have a good sleep so that they can make better arguments tomorrow.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Social Security (Contributions, Re-rating) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.—[Dr. Boyson.]

Resolved,

That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 6) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.—[Dr. Boyson.]

Motion made anti Question proposed,

That the draft Social Security (Treasury Supplement to Contributions) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.—[Dr. Boyson.]

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 90.

Division No. 113]
[11 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Budgen, Nick


Amess, David
Burt, Alistair


Ancram, Michael
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Tom
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Ashby, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carttiss, Michael


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Chope, Christopher


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baldry, Anthony
Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cockeram, Eric


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Colvin, Michael


Beggs, Roy
Conway, Derek


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Simon


Berry, Sir Anthony
Cope, John


Best, Keith
Couchman, James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Dicks, T.


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Body, Richard
Dover, Denshore


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dykes, Hugh


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Emery, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Peter
Evennett, David


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Eyre, Reginald


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fallon, Michael


Braine, Sir Bernard
Farr, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Favell, Anthony


Bright, Graham
Forth, Eric


Brinton, Tim
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fox, Marcus


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Crthpes)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bruinvels, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grant, Sir Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)






Grist, Ian
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Grylls, Michael
Pollock, Alexander


Gummer, John Selwyn
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Powley, John


Harris, David
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hayes, J.
Raffan, Keith


Heddle, John
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Henderson, Barry
Renton, Tim


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Rhodes James, Robert


Holt, Richard
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hooson, Tom
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howard, Michael
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rowe, Andrew


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ryder, Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Knowles, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lamont, Norman
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lang, Ian
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lester, Jim
Sims, Roger


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamfd)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lightbown, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Lord, Michael
Speed, Keith


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Speller, Tony


Macfarlane, Neil
Spencer, D.


MacGregor, John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Squire, Robin


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maclean, David John.
Stern, Michael


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Madel, David
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Major, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Malins, Humfrey
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Mather, Carol
Stradling Thomas, J.


Maude, Francis
Tapsell, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Merchant, Piers
Terlezki, Stefan


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Miller, Hal (B grove)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Moate, Roger
Thornton, Malcolm


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thurnham, Peter


Montgomery, Fergus
Tracey, Richard


Moore, John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Moynihan, Hon C.
Viggers, Peter


Mudd, David
Waddington, David


Murphy, Christopher
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nelson. Anthony
Walden, George


Newton, Tony
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Nicholson, J.
Waller, Gary


Norris, Steven
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Onslow, Cranley
Warren, Kenneth


Ottaway, Richard
Watson, John


Page, John (Harrow W)
Watts, John


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Pawsey, James
Wheeler, John





Whitfield, John
Woodcock, Michael


Whitney, Raymond
Yeo, Tim


Wiggin, Jerry
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wilkinson, John



Winterton, Mrs Ann
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Michael Neubert


Wood, Timothy





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
John, Brynmor


Ashdown, Paddy
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Barron, Kevin
Kennedy, Charles


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Kirkwood, Archibald


Beith, A. J.
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Blair, Anthony
Loyden, Edward


Boyes, Roland
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
McKelvey, William


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
McNamara, Kevin


Bruce, Malcolm
McTaggart, Robert


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McWilliam, John


Canavan, Dennis
Madden, Max


Clay, Robert
Marek, Dr John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Maxton, John


Cohen, Harry
Meacher, Michael


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Michie, William


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Nellist, David


Corbett, Robin
Paisley, Rev Ian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Park, George


Craigen, J. M.
Parry, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Patchett, Terry


Dalyell, Tam
Pavitt, Laurie


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Penhaligon, David


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Pike, Peter


Deakins, Eric
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dobson, Frank
Prescott, John


Dorrnand, Jack
Redmond, M.


Dubs, Alfred
Robertson, George


Duffy, A. E. P.
Rooker, J. W.


Eadie, Alex
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Eastham, Ken
Rowlands, Ted


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Sheerman, Barry


Fatchett, Derek
Skinner, Dennis


Faulds, Andrew
Soley, Clive


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Stott, Roger


Foulkes, George
Strang, Gavin


George, Bruce
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Godman, Dr Norman
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Wareing, Robert


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter



Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Tellers for the Noes:


Home Robertson, John
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Hoyle, Douglas
Mr. Don Dixon.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Social Security (Treasury Supplement to Contributions) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.

Fisheries (Northern Ireland)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I beg to move,
That the draft Fisheries (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 15th November, be approved.
This matter of inland fisheries administration in Northern Ireland has been the subject of much debate for some considerable time, including discussion in the Northern Ireland Committee of this House. Although it has also been a controversial issue, I hope that the House will accept a relatively brief explanation of the development of the draft order.
When the present Fisheries Act was introduced in 1966 it provided for the establishment of the fisheries conservancy board. This board was to have, as its prime responsibility, the conservation and protection of salmon and inland fisheries in Northern Ireland, except for an area administered by the Foyle fisheries commission. The 1966 Act also provided that the Department of Agriculture should have overall responsibility for the development and management of inland fisheries.
The passage of time and experience of working arrangements of the Act highlighted the desirability of certain amendments, and in 1977 the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason), set up a committee of inquiry chaired by Professor R. D. C. Black of Queen's University Belfast. Its purpose was to examine the administration of inland fisheries provisions in the Act, and to recommend any changes that might seem desirable. Although the future of angling was given special prominence in the committee's remit, it was clearly instructed to cover all relevant issues and to try to resolve the acknowledged conflicting interests.
In its report the Black committee recommended that a unified structure for inland fisheries administration would be desirable. However, the committee was divided on how this should be achieved. A majority recommended that all functions — conservation, protection, development and management—should be brought together under a new inland fisheries board, but a minority took an entirely contrary view and recommended that all functions should be co-ordinated under the Department of Agriculture. This fundamental disagreement among members of the committee reflected a similar lack of consensus among interested parties throughout the Province and for this reason the main recommendation of the report to set up an independent fisheries board proved unacceptable to Ministers. During the two years following the Black report the Government — I took an active part — undertook further discussions with all interest groups in an attempt to resolve conflicting views and find a satisfactory solution. In April 1983 an alternative strategy in the form of a proposal for a draft order was published. By this time the Agriculture Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly had undertaken an examination of the issues. Following a series of hearings at which evidence was taken from various interests, the Committee — to its great credit — achieved a wide measure of consensus and produced a report that was subsequently endorsed by the full Assembly. Finally, the matter was debated in the Northern Ireland Committee, at which I indicated that the

Government were strongly inclined to accept most of the Assembly's recommendations. Indeed, since then, my noble Friend has incorporated significant amendments in the draft which is before the House.
The first two articles contain no provisions of substance. I shall deal with articles 3 and 4 in reverse order as this will make it easier to explain their purpose.
Article 4 and its related schedule provides for the fisheries conservancy board to be retained but to be increased in size from 15 to a maximum of 24 members and for an executive committee to be established. The increase in size is to permit previously unrepresented interests to have their say in fisheries matters. For the first time, three farming representatives will sit on the board, and industry, sport and local government will have one representative each. Also, in future two of the six angling representatives on the board will be independent anglers, anglers who do not belong to clubs that are affiliated to the Northern Ireland angling advisory council. The remaining four angling delegates will continue to be representative of other club anglers. Also, the deputy chairman, instead of being the representative of the Department of Agriculture as at present, will be an independent member nominatee by the head of the Department—in effect, by the Minister. Numerical representation for commerical fishing companies, commercial fishermen and tourism will be unchanged. Finally, there is a provision for the board to nominate a further two members to represent any significant interest groups that they consider have not already been adequately catered for.
The board will be too large to concern itself with day-to-day management matters, and so the legislation also provides for an executive committee of from three to six members. The committee will comprise the chairman and/ or deputy chairman of the main board and others chosen by the board from among its members. This committee will have specific responsibility for financial matters and for directing the permanent staff of the board. This arrangement should maximise efficiency in the control of illegal fishing and the investigation of pollution incidents.
Article 3 deals with the functions of the new board and provides that these should include not only conservation and protection but the provision of advice to Government on matters relating to salmon and inland fisheries. Originally the Government intended to set up a new body —the inland fisheries advisory committee—to provide advice, but as the proposed new FCB is to be widely representative it will now be able to fulfil this function instead. That is done by the present board, albeit from a less representative standpoint. The Minister will be required to consult the board on all major matters. The article also provides that the board should retain responsibility for the protection of salmon at sea unless directed otherwise by the head of the Department. This provision, while it does not change the present arrangements, allows for a rationalisation in this area should that become desirable. The only other substantive provision in this article is that contained in the new section 25(2). At present, the board's functions include the improvement of fisheries. Article 3 contains a wider provision, which would allow not only improvement work to be undertaken but any other inland fisheries function which the head of the Department might specify.
Article 5 would enable the Government to introduce a supplementary levy on fishing licences by means of an appointed day order. There are no plans at present to


introduce such a levy, and before doing so the fisheries conservancy board would be consulted on the level of any proposed fees. There will be no supplement on licences in the immediate future and I hope that Members will be reassured on this issue by my noble Friend's recent announcement that, pending a review of the financing of inland fisheries, permit charges are to be held at 1983 levels for the coming angling season. It would of course be counter-productive if an increase in licence fees invoked the law of diminishing returns, but on the other hand it is reasonable to look to those who benefit from the sport to make a proper contribution to the funding of it.
Article 6 has no provisions of substance and merely provides for the removal from the 1966 Act of certain obsolete provisions.
I hope that it will have been noted from this review of the provisions of the draft order that most of the changes sought by the Assembly and the Northern Ireland Committee have been accommodated. There are two areas where change has been sought and where the Government, while maintaining their basic position, have been disposed to alter their policy to some extent. The first of these—the provision for a supplementary levy on fishing licences —I have already dealt with. The second is the question of public water management.
As a subsidiary but relevant point, I would like to first say something about the role of angling clubs in the development of angling facilities. At present grant-aid is available to clubs to carry out improvement and development work on their waters, provided that they have security of tenure and provided that there is a measure of access for the public, for example on a daily permit basis. Both in evidence to the Assembly and in the Northern Ireland Committee debate, I acknowledged the valuable role that clubs have to play in the promotion of angling. I have encouraged them to take greater advantage of the assistance available to them. Some clubs may want to extend their waters if so, although their is no specific reference in the order to enable the role of clubs to be extended, the Government would be prepared to consider entering into agreement with clubs, whereby, for example, some under-utilised public waters could be leased to the clubs under certain circumstances. The primary requirement for such an agreement would, of course, be that access for the general public to such facilities would be safeguarded. I believe that the clubs have a responsibility in that area. They have a particular expertise, and because of the voluntary labour that they can use, they tend to be able to do the job cost-effectively. I hope that they will take advantage of the opportunities available to them in the legislation, to which I referred a few moments ago.
Among the recommendations that emanated from the Assembly on the management of public waters was a proposal that the Department and the board should consider how the Department's public water management function might be transferred to the board, on an agency basis, without leading to any overall increase in staff or public expenditure. My noble Friend—as I did before him— has given a great deal of consideration to this issue. As with any proposal, there are arguments for and against it. Staffing and public expenditure considerations point to a maintenance of the status quo on public water management, as do several other considerations.
I shall say more about those considerations shortly, but I want to make it clear that the Government are satisfied that the arguments against a transfer of the management

function at present must be regarded as conclusive. Nevertheless, my noble Friend does not rule out the possibility of a reassessment of the position in the future should circumstances warrant it. I have already explained how article 3 of the order would allow the board to he given agency responsibilities. I should now like to say something about the circumstances in which use might be made of this provision with regard to public water management.
The FCB is first and foremost a conservancy body. It receives agency payments from the Department of Agriculture and from the Department of the Environment, but its basic source of finance is licence revenue. That revenue is contributed by all fishermen—commercial as well as angling— and those fishermen are entitled to expect the board to deliver the goods in terms of conserving and protecting the Province's fisheries. The new board will therefore first have to prove itself ir this area by tackling effectively the problems of illegal fishing and of pollution of watercourses.
In its wider role as the Government's adviser on inland fisheries affairs, the board will have to show that its members can work together as a team and can come up with sound, agreed advice on a wide variety of issues. When it has demonstrated its credentials in those areas, then, provided that there is agreement among the interests represented that it would be appropriate for the board to take on this further responsibility, the Government will certainly be prepared to look again at the public water management issue. The financial implications of any increase in the board's responsibilities could be considered in the circumstances then prevailing.
I hope that from what I have said it will be generally recognised that the Government have done their best to listen and to accommodate their proposals to the various points of view that have been put forward. It has not been an easy matter. Despite the efforts that have been made to achieve a high level of success, there is still some disagreement among those various interested parties-- we are not just talking about the anglers—about ihe best way to manage fishery affairs in the future.
This order re-establishes these matters on a sound footing and enable the matters that have been pressed for, and upon which the Government have not been able to give way fully, to be brought about in the future in the way that I have described.
In the meantime a new spirit of co-operation is needed. My noble Friend will be establishing procedures to facilitate regular and effective consultation with the board. and high on the list of issues to be considered in that context will be the many detailed recommendations in the Black report. The Government will be looking to the anglers and other interests to play their part in what we hope will be a more constructive era in the inland fisheries affairs of Northern Ireland.
In that spirit, I commend this draft order to the House.

Mr. Clive Soley: The Minister has come forward with a revised draft fisheries order containing amendments, some of which were recommended by the Northern Ireland Assembly. I gather that the Assembly's role was important and that a considerable degree of agreement was reached, which is encouraging. In a number of ways I think the Minister is in a minority in his comments. He has decided to leave control in the


hands of the Department of Agriculture and he seems still to take the view that there is too much dissent, whether among the minority that signed the Black report or among some of the angling groups, on the issue of where the control should lie. I note the expanded representation from 15 to 24, but there is no concomitant increase in powers or finances. Accordingly a very great deal is open to doubt on the effectiveness of the order.
I was struck by the Minister's constant reference throughout his speech to the way in which the Government are to consult the fisheries conservation board on matters of concern. Unfortunately, a number of us have learnt that consultation with the Government is rather like having one's fortune told: they tell one what is in store, and one crosses their palm with silver. For many of us that is not the idea of effective consultation.
I want to know what plans, if any, the Government have to develop publicly controlled waters. The Black report suggested that 1·4 per cent. of the publicly controlled waters of Northern Ireland were used effectively whereas the comparable figure in the south of Ireland was 5 per cent. and in Great Britain it was 6 per cent. There is, therefore, real opportunity for expansion. anyone with any knowledge of Northern Ireland knows that there is potential in terms of tourism and leisure facilities.
The fishery conservation board could develop and promote public fisheries. It already has bailiff responsibility and I gather would welcome a more instructive role. There seems little doubt in my mind, although I would not claim to be an expert on this, that it could increase its role and activities in conservation and, indeed, expand, if it were given the power to do so, in leisure activities, thus creating jobs. Given that the Government underspent on last year's industrial development money, there is no reason why that money should not be made available to a fisheries conservation board.
The tenor of the Minister's approach to this seems to be that he does not want to give the fisheries conservation board real control. I cannot help feeling that underlying this is a desperate attempt to keep down public expenditure. I imagine that we would all feel a little happier if the record of the Government were not so bad in this respect. Government expenditure, as we all know, has not significantly dropped in relation to gross national product, but local authority expenditure has been cut severely. It is a classic case of, "Do not do as we do, but as we tell you." The money that could have been spent on industrial development last year could be made available to a greatly expanded fisheries conservation board, its powers could be increased and that would be a real benefit to the industry in Northern Ireland.
Another area about which I am concerned is the control of pollution. The Ulster Farmers Union issued an interesting press release recently arguing the case for concern about pollution by farmers and industry generally. It gave one example of a county Tyrone fish farmer losing approximately £80,000 worth of rainbow trout as a result of pollution. I wonder how much more effective an inland fisheries authority could have been if the Minister had chosen to give it sufficient power and authority to act.
All the evidence from this country and elsewhere tells us that one needs power to insist that the polluter should take steps to improve the standards of control of effluent and other noxious substances that industry, farming or

other organisations release. The Minister seems to have given this matter insufficient thought. It is a relevant power for a fisheries conservation board to have, and yet no real power, financial or otherwise, exists. The Department of the Environment prosecutes, but there seems to be a case for enhanced power to be given to the fisheries conservation board.
I am not sure what the Government meant by their recent announcement of an examination of the finances of inland fisheries. The Minister said tonight that the Government had made up their mind not to pass control to the new body, but then said that he would be willing to reconsider the matter in future. The Government are resolutely irresolute, and are willing to change their mind again. What did he mean by saying that the Government will re-examine those finances? Will it simply be an examination of permits and permit prices, or will the Minister go further, as one suspects, and say that the Government will reconsider the matter and perhaps find other ways of financing the new body or of increasing its financial powers? If so, the House would wish to hear about it soon.

Mr. William Ross: In his letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the Minister of State, the Earl of Mansfield, suggested in the Committee debate of 20 July that we should not stick too closely to the dated Black report. In the light of events then, it seems that the Black report is more up to date than was suggested, with massive changes in the Government's thinking taking them back in its direction.
Nevertheless, three outstanding problems must be resolved quickly: the management of public waters, the composition of the board, and the financing of the new fisheries body. There have been many hiccups along the way. I gather from those involved in the negotiations that, after the Assembly debate, a meeting was requested between the entire board and the Minister. On 3 August the Minister met the chief executive of the board. That was followed by another meeting between departmental officials and members of the board on 11 August.
At the second meeting, the board was told that the officials had no power to negotiate, that the Government did not contemplate any changes, and that there would be no full reassessment of the Government's position. It would have been wise for the Minister to meet the full board so that detailed discussions could have taken place, and a satisfactory conclusion thrashed out. Instead, it must be thrashed out tonight and in succeeding months and years.
In the general to-ing and fro-ing, we seem to have lost sight of the important matter of the financing of the board. The Black report suggested that the Government should provide £200,000 so that the organisation could run satisfactorily. That suggestion has disappeared, and, although the board has received some Government money, it was in payment for what the board had done. There was not much profit in, for example, payments made for pollution control. It was not really Government money coming into angling. The board must now try to raise the money that it needs to improve fisheries from the present low standard, especially in migratory fish, to former


glories, if that is possible. I do not understand how the new board is expected to raise the money that is obviously needed, especially with the reduction in licences sold.
The Minister mentioned the levy that the Government may or may not decide to impose. That levy worries the angling public, and the Government will be aware of the many rumours of a £60 fishing licence in Northern Ireland.
I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the Government would go into the whole question of the provision of the necessary cash for the fishery board in the near future. Like the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), I should like to know how detailed that inquiry will be because the question of finance is crucial to the success or otherwise of the new body. I do not want to hear a Minister, of whatever party, say in a few years that the board had been a failure, when the real reason was lack of money to keep it working satisfactorily. The financial arrangements must be spelt out clearly in the early stages so that the board knows exactly what it will get and can cut its suit from the available cloth.
I am concerned over the cost of licences. According to the documentation available to us, if there must be an increase, it will not be more than 60 per cent. in real terms spread over three years. If there is inflation, the licence will be more than £60. As I pointed out in the debate on 20 July, if one buys all the licences to fish in Northern Ireland, the present cost is £38·05. If there is a 60 per cent. rise in real terms, plus a little inflation, it will cost about £70, which is a considerable sum for those who fish in Northern Ireland.
Let us consider the angling public. Fishing is not like other recreations or sports. Anglers are often very young. I started to fish shortly after my sixth birthday. I sometimes think that I have been doing it for far too long for the number of fish that I have caught. I have long since become convinced that it is the costliest way to get a fish for supper. We fish because we enjoy it, not for the pot; and those who go fishing for the pot are often sadly disappointed. Anglers may be very young or very old. The result is that large numbers of children fish, and they have licence concessions, and many pensioners, who have more time than most in which to fish, and it is a pleasant recreation for them.
Most other sports are indulged in by those of wage-earning capacity who are in a better financial position to follow their recreation compared with those who fish. That point should be taken seriously into account because we in Northern Ireland have a tradition of cheap and relatively good angling. Although the number of public waterways —those owned and run by the Department—is low, there is no bar to any angler who wants to fish. The amount of water available to the general public in Northern Ireland is enormous, and that is available to people once they have their licence, and some is available at no further cost. It would be wrong to compare the position in Northern Ireland, or Ireland generally, with the cost and availability of waters in this country.

Mr. Soley: If I remember the relevant part of the Black report correctly, it talked about the utilisation of water.

Mr. Ross: That did not deal with the availability of water. Much of the water not utilised is available. It is not developed or looked after. Frequently, therefore, one is dealing with the problems of bailiffing, illegal fishing and the slaughter of the fish by illegal methods. The existing

laws must be enforced, thereby maintaining sufficient fish, so that the waters can be utilised by anglers. That is a different kettle of fish from fishing in Great Britain generally, although there is much more cheap fishing available in Great Britain than is generally realised.
Fishing is a localised recreation. One has to go to the local area and find out where the fishing is good. I can assure the House that if an angler finds a good spot he does not broadcast the fact around but keeps it to himself. We are, at the end of the day, a fairly selfish bunch.
Questions have been raised by the Department and echoed by the Minister about the ability of the board to control waters. It is an interesting reflection of the views taken by the Department of Agriculture. When we judge the ability of the Government Department concerned to protect and defend the fisheries, we must look throughout Northern Ireland. I shall refer to a few instances that have come to my attention. Although I live in the Fob le area, I am talking about the Department's ability to protect and defend fisheries throughout Northern Ireland, and not just the area covered by the conservancy board.
As I told the Committee on 20 July, an enormous sum of money has been paid to farmers in the past to enable them to build silage pits and collection points for silage effluent. Far too often that effluent finds its way into the water course with the most dreadful effects, not least during the past summer.
We must consider not simply the problem of pollution but the question of enforcement in building the tanks to contain the stuff. I believe that if matters had been dealt with properly and that the regulations laid down by the Department of Agriculture were properly enforced when the pits were put up, we would not have had half the trouble we have had.
Who is the principal offender when it comes to dealing with sewage? The Department of the Environment has caused horrendous problems. During the industrial action in Britain last year involving the water workers, sewage was discharged into several streams and many rivers in various parts of Northern Ireland. The Government may try to get off the hook by saying that they were dealing with a strike and industrial action. I was told on 14 March by the then Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office that he regretted what had happened. If an industrial undertaking was guilty of pollution because its workers were on strike, would the Government bodies responsible for the purity of water stand back and say "Yes, we accept your excuse"? The Government must examine that problem seriously. If necessary, means must be devised to prevent sewage and other pollutants from getting into the streams during periods of industrial action. I do not think we can allow that to happen again. A strike may occur at any time and lead to serious consequences for fisheries. If the owners of the fisheries were to decide to sue the Department, I am sure that the Government would find themselves in a difficult position.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: In England, water authorities are in charge of prosecuting pollution offences, and they are also the sewerage authorities. What is the position in Northern Ireland? English Members would be interested to know that.

Mr. Ross: The position is very much the same. When the matter was discussed in the House some years ago, many questions were raised. The Government were


anxious to tell us that they would keep their house in order. The truth is that often they do not keep their house in order. As one Government Department is unlikely to take another Government Department to court, excuses are made and the Department is treated more lightly than private firms or individuals would be treated.
I come to the second reason why matters went wrong. I raised the point on 20 July, when I pointed out that the Clough river in county Antrim was poisoned by a chemical put into the storage plant at a water treatment plant. Someone forgot to turn off the outlet valve, and the chemical ran into the river and, among other things, poisoned a fish farm. I understand that that cost the Department of the Environment between £150,000 and £200,000 in compensation.
That was bad enough, but in September last year my local stream, the Roe, was poisoned by exactly the same chemical. The restocking of that stream has cost about £30,000. We are grateful to the Government for correcting the problem, but it does not say much for the ability of the Department of the Environment to protect the purity of the water.
The Roe is in the Foyle area, but it comes under the general control of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture. Let us further consider what has happened to that river. I have a great interest in the matter as I fish in that river and it runs through my lands. Following the pollution, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment went out of their way to try to correct the problem, but they met difficulties. A number of requests were made by local anglers, and agreed to by the Departments. One was that a notch should be cut in the O'Cathans Rock weir to allow the free passage of salmon and migratory fish upstream. During the middle of the longest drought for many years, two men came to cut the notch. It was recommended that the notch should be 18 in wide by 6 in deep. The anglers, who take a keen interest in the matter, said that either the weir had to be breached so as not to cause any interference to running fish, or a suitable pass should be constructed. The notch cut was only 14 in wide and 3 in deep. The man who cut it said that a flood was needed to prove his contention that the notch was sufficient.
Of course, I know that this is all very interesting to hon. Members, but the reaction of the Angling Association is quite interesting. The former secretary of that association told me, in a letter dated 12 December 1983, that there was a meeting on 31 May of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Environment and the Foyle Fisheries Commission. However, my informant told me that the Angling Association was not represented. To the best of his knowledge, the present secretary did not receive any notification of the meeting. He wrote:
The notch which has been put on the weir is useless. It is in the wrong place for all water levels and for all water flows. Again if the local anglers had been consulted they could have advised the Department of Agriculture as to where the salmon run the weir. Wishing you a happy Christmas".
It does not seem that the secretary will have one.
The trouble is that the river is running high now, and the opportunity of correcting the problem will not recur for goodness knows how long. The matter does not end there. The river is in a country park, and many other people have a toe in the door. Despite the guarantees and understandings reached by the anglers in the early stages,

they seem to have been overtaken by the Department's officials in the intervening months. New fish stock was to be brought in to restock the river. The local angling association said that it wanted a few large fish from the river Finn, which is a tributary of the Foyle system. It is the only spring river in that system.
In 1982, the river Finn ran high all year. Incidentally, it is in Donegal. We are told that it ran so high that it was impossible to get fish. However, I have seen fish being caught by electro fishing methods in very difficult water conditions. This year, everything was perfect. But when the day came, and when all the nets, boats and men were ready to catch the fish, the Department of Agriculture informed the Foyle Fisheries Commission that due to the Diseases of Fish Act, which was placed on the statute book earlier this year, it could not allow the fish to be taken other than under the most stringent conditions. The end result was that no fish were taken.
Even after a year in which to plan the operation the conditions were that the potential parent fish were to be removed to Ballyshannon in county Donegal for stripping. The eggs were to be hatched there and again removed to the Cushendall isolation hatchery. During the passage of the Fish Diseases Bill, I read into the record the conditions that applied to the importation of fish stock into the Republic of Ireland. They are very stringent. If the Minister is not aware of them, he will no doubt be prepared to look them up.
The great problem for the anglers is that as far as I am aware the Diseases of Fish Act does not yet apply in Northern Ireland. Therefore, the excuses made by the Department's officials about the taking of fish from the river Finn are not valid. I see an hon. Member looking puzzled, but that Act opened the door for the importation of salmonoids to Great Britain from Northern Ireland, but under very strict conditions. The intention was that Northern Ireland could trade in such fish, but only when the avenues had been opened by certain orders. I believe that those orders have not yet been passed by the House.
I am sorry to speak for so long, but the saga is interesting and all sorts of things crop up. I shall cover only a few of them, but there are plenty more if hon. Members want to go digging. The river Bush experiment has now been running for 10 years. It has been described as a luxury that we can no longer afford and that is no longer needed. It is run by the Department of Agriculture, and 10 or 12 scientific papers have been published about it, and it is of great interest to those in salmon fishing and management throughout the world.
The Bush was originally a spring river and I am told that the historical catch was between 4,000 and 6,000 fish. According to the Government the catch was 2,614 in 1973, 3,591 in 1974 and 3,442 in 1975. Can the Minister tell us whether that was after the appearance of salmon disease? If it was, as I believe is the case, the figures are false in the sense that they are not the true historical figure. Perhaps the Minister can also say what the catch is now and what the chances are of catching any salmon on a visit to that river. It is no wonder that the salmon fishermen are displeased and most unhappy about the situation. The experiment is indeed a luxury that we can no longer afford.
In stocking a river one tries to get fish from the same genetic pool. That is why we tried to get salmon from the Finn in the Foyle area. There have been so many restockings from so many places, however, that there are very few pure stocks left anywhere in the British Isles, and


that is no more so in Northern Ireland than anywhere else. Research carried out by Queen's university suggests that in lough Melvin the so-called brown trout comprises four or five different subspecies breeding in different parts of the river, some going down the outlet rivers to spawn while others go up into the headwaters. Experts are concerned that bringing in stock from outside may disturb the ecology of the river, but for a century or more every farmer in the country has been trying to improve his stock by cross-breeding. Fish farmers do the same, so why can it not be done in the wild? Why do the experts not apply the same commonsense farming attitudes to restocking schemes to improve the size and quality of fish?
There are many conflicting interests in Government Departments, but I hope that I have made it clear that the disquiet felt by managers of Northern Ireland waters about the activities of the Department of Agriculture has at least some foundation. The concern is deep-rooted and widespread. No Minister can claim that the Department is always right and that its views should be heeded to the exclusion of all others. Certainly, most people do not share that view.
I drew attention to the community aspect of the angling clubs in the July debate. At that time the Minister did not seem to understand what I was getting at, but his remarks today suggest that he has learnt a good deal in the intervening period. He has now expressed the Government's willingness to help anglers and angling clubs.
As soon as an angling club gets going and sets up a fishery it becomes liable for rates, thus undermining its ability to carry out the improvements that it wishes to achieve. If the Minister really wishes to help the clubs perhaps he will take a long, hard look at that financial imposition as it is a definite bar to the extension of clubs and the willingness of groups of anglers to form clubs to improve fishing. As soon as they do so they have to find money. Many therefore prefer to reap the sparser benefits of continuing without a club.
I read the schedule with the greatest of interest. Paragraph 2 says:


(a) four shall be persons chosen by the Head of the Department from any list of candidates not being less than six in number that may be submitted to the Head of the Department by a body or bodies for the time being recognised by the Head of the Department as representative of a substantial number of anglers;
(b) three shall be persons appointed by the Head of the Department as representatives of any companies for the time being recognised by him as substantially interested in the commercial operation of any salmon or eel fishery;
(c) three shall be persons appointed by the Head of the Department as representatives of commercial fishermen (other than the companies recognised for the purposes of head (b));
(d) three shall be persons nominated by the Ulster Farmers' Union from amongst its members, one of whom shall be a person representative of persons operating fish farms;
(e) two shall be persons appointed by the Head of the Department as representatives of anglers not represented by the body or bodies recognised for the purposes of head (a);
(f) one shall be a person nominated by the Confederation of British Industry;
(g) one shall be a person nominated by the Department of Economic Development as representative of persons engaged in the tourism industry;
(h) one shall be a person nominated by the Department of Education as representative of persons participating in sport and physical recreation;
(i) one shall be a person nominated by such organisation as appears to the Head of the Department substantially to represent district councils;

(j) one shall be an officer of the Department;
(k) not more than two shall be persons appointed by the Head of the Department as representatives of such other persons or bodies as the Board may recommend to him.
The House will appreciate, therefore, that the members of the board will be nominated or appointed or chosen. It is the anglers who come out of the equation worst. I suspect that the Angling Federation is the body that will be put forward as representing a substantial number of anglers. It has to produce not less than six names of which the Minister will choose four. That is simply a means of the Department ignoring, or getting rid of, people who have been a thorn in its flesh.
I see no reason why the Angling Federation cannot submit four names and have them accepted. Other people are able to do just that. The proposal that the Department should select from the six names must be changed as there is no way in which anglers—I speak as an angler—can accept someone else selecting who shall speak for us. We have a right to determine who shall speak for us.
The two people who are selected as representatives of anglers who are not represented by a body or bodies will be independent-minded individuals. The interesting thing about such people is that they stand on their own feet. There are thousands of worthy people who would be perfectly good representatives. How will the Minister or the Department select just two? As we say in Ulster, the Minister might as well go out and play glam in the dark —he does not know what he will get. Does he hope that he will get someone who is acceptable to the Department? We should know how such people will be chosen. For whom will they speak? Surely it will be for themselves.

Mr. Butler: I shall give the hon. Gentleman just a moment's rest. I assume for the moment that the hon. Gentleman would wish independent anglers to be represented on the board. If I can take that assumption for granted, perhaps he will say how he would choose them.

Mr. Ross: I was not so daft as to write that prov:ision into the order. If I were confronted with the problem I would say to independent anglers, "Get down to your club and elect your representatives." That is the only way in which the matter can be dealt with.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman is saying that he would definitely not have independent anglers represented on the board?

Mr. Ross: I say that because there is no way in which the mass of independent anglers can have any say in who is to represent them. If they are to be represented, there should be some form of elective process. That is not to be found in the order. Such an omission is not acceptable to anyone who believes in the elective process, especially a Member of Parliament.
If a board representing all these bodies is to be set up, let us have it set up in the same way. Let the commercial fishermen nominate their own people, as the farmers union can, let the anglers nominate their own people, and let the Department accept them. That will be far more acceptable to the anglers in Northern Ireland.
There have been large changes from the original order, and the Government have gone a long way to meet objections, fears and worries of the anglers. These are three issues of great importance to the future of the new board. The Government have at least unlocked the door on


the control of public waters. They should go the whole way and should now start giving the control of those waters over to the board, let it run those waters, stand on its own feet and be composed of members that are nominated by their own body. Then they can defend their actions to those bodies and to the anglers.
If the Minister wishes, there is no reason why he should not do what the anglers and the board have recommended —start with a partnership between the Department and the board, but let us start down that road now. When we do, we shall have a good order, but up to now, the order does not meet the real needs of the Ulster angling population.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Our Province tonight is shadowed and stained with the butchery and blood of terrorism, and that should never be forgotten when we are debating anything here that is relevant to Northern Ireland. Our society labours under intense and terrible difficulties, and that cannot be forgotten by hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland. I hope that they will not forget it.
We have an opportunity to discuss a matter that has caused a great deal of concern, and generated a great deal of interest and antagonism, in Northern Ireland. As Chairman of the Assembly's Agriculture Committee, along with my colleagues on the Committee I have had long conversations and fact-finding meetings on the matters that concern us. The Agriculture Committee has carefully studied this matter and has industriously considered the whole problem of angling administration in Northern Ireland. We have discussed this matter for the major part of the year, and I am pleased to be able to say that our efforts have not been in vain. They have been amply, although not fully, rewarded, as I shall explain.
The Minister spoke of some of the history leading to the draft order. Angling matters in Northern Ireland are covered by the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, passed by the Stormont Parliament. The administration of the Act is carried out by the fisheries conservancy board, which was set up under the Act, and it performs agency functions, such baliffing and pollution control policing, but the Department reserves to itself the acquisition of angling waters, their development and management and fisheries research matters.
When the 1966 Act was passed by the Stormont Parliament, the arrangements and division of responsibilities were needed to provide the necessary impetus for the development of public angling facilities in the Province. It was necessary for the Department of Agriculture to assume the major responsibility for the right and proper development of angling waters. I pay tribute to the Department. It did a good job. Our anglers were able to fish in publicly controlled waters all over the Province. The availability of facilities was also of great benefit to the tourist industry.
Times change. We now have all the publicly owned waters that we need. The Department has developed them and the only real, on-going functions left relate to the prevention of pollution and illegal fishing, fisheries research and the management of existing waters. The question now is whether the existing division of

responsibilities between the Department and the Fisheries Conservancy Board should remain, or whether the balance should be altered to meet the new circumstances.
The question is not new. The Black report's majority view was that a change of emphasis was required. That emphasis should be to encourage the increased use of fishing and its improved quality in these waters. That is the crux. How can that be achieved?
The Black report made a number of recommendations with the majority view favouring the establishment of a new body—an inland fisheries board—charged with handling all aspects of angling management — the development of angling waters, promotion of the sport and the policing and bailiffing of poaching and pollution.
Black recommended that the research aspects should remain with the Department. The report's minority view was that the best way forward was to move backwards. It recommended not only that the Department should continue its existing functions but that it should swallow up the duties of the fisheries conservancy board. At the same time, a widely representative, non-executive committee was proposed—a toothless talking shop—to advise the Department on all aspects of angling and other uses of our lakes and rivers.
The report, with its two opposing views, came as a great disappointment to the angling fraternity in Northern Ireland and it rejected it outright. We had moved not one step further towards solving the problem.
As a result of the deadlock, the Minister who has spoken tonight and who was responsible for agriculture in Northern Ireland, issued press statements in August and November 1982 in which he said that as it had not been possible to obtain consensus among angling interests about the future administration of fishing in Northern Ireland he proposed to table a new set of ideas for discussion. Those proposals would have resulted in the demotion of the fisheries conservancy board to nothing more than a police force dealing with pollution and bailiffing. He proposed the setting up of a new body to be called the inland fisheries advisory committee with advisory and consultative roles only and with the Department running the whole show.
There was no democracy in those proposals, in the opinion of the people who have an interest in the matter in Northern Ireland. It is no wonder that there was a bitter reaction among the anglers in Northern Ireland — a community which has been denied any democratic control for many years. It is small wonder that the aggrieved parties turned for help to the Northern Ireland Assembly and to its Agriculture Committee. The Committee responded by examining the whole position in detail in advance of the publication of the Minister's proposal.
The Minister contended that consensus could not be obtained. On 28 February the Agriculture Committee of the Assembly took evidence throughout the day from the Minister himself, from all interested parties: the fisheries conservancy board for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland angling advisory council, the Ulster Farmers Union—our farmers have an important role to play—the North Coast Salmon Drifters (Open Sea) Northern Ireland Association, and the Lough Erne fishermen's association. From the evidence we heard and in conjunction with all the written submissions from the parties involved, we concluded—we were proved correct—that a consensus was possible, that a solution could be worked out that


could satisfy, perhaps not entirely but certainly to a substantial degree, the wishes, aims and aspirations of all the interests involved.
We prepared our report overnight on the findings, agreed the text the following day and presented our recommendations to the Assembly, where the report was debated and fully endorsed on 3 March 1983.
In the debate on the subject in the Northern Ireland Committee of the House in July, I paid tribute to the interest and endeavour of the Agriculture Committee in this matter and to the efficiency of the staff of the Assembly in making it possible. I make no apology for repeating that message in the House tonight. That it was possible bears great testimony to the dedication of the democratically elected members of that place who, for more than a year now, have striven to represent the interests of the people of Ulster and to bring their views to bear upon the Government in a democratic manner.
The main thrust of our recommendations was that the fisheries conservancy board should not be contracted, as the Minister was suggesting, but rather that it should be expanded to include representatives from the farming community and other interests and that such a restyled board should not only retain its existing functions but should be given the duty of managing public angling waters—a job presently done by the Department.
I say to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) that the Northern Ireland angling advisory council agreed that two members from independent angling interests should be represented on the board. It agreed that there was a difficulty in choosing, but it still said that it wanted that representation made. Our Committee had representations from the independent anglers. There are people who want to say that the Northern Ireland angling advisory council wants everything. I wish to refute that. We found it prepared to meet and discuss matters reasonably.
Only in this way would it be possible to give all those directly involved in angling matters a meaningful democratic role, in the administration of angling matters. It would not be a talking shop; it would not be a purely advisory or consultative body; rather it would produce a body with real executive powers exercised by anglers and others for the benefit of all parties concerned.
Our recommendations gained widespread acceptance and we asked the Minister to think again about his proposals in the light of the consensus we had achieved. He responded by accepting a substantial part of our report but was completely opposed to the devolution of management powers from the Department of Agriculture to the fisheries conservancy board. He said that he would be publishing his proposals as originally intended but that he would make it clear in the accompanying explanatory memorandum that he was minded to make adjustments to the draft order later, in line with the wishes expressed in the Assembly report.
The main issue remained, which was that of management function. The angling interests were agreed that that fundamental issue should be within the function of an expanded fisheries conservancy board. The Minister published his proposals and we were afforded a second bite of the cherry.
Once again, we consulted the various bodies involved in angling and those representing the farming communities. We found the prevailing opinion to be that angling matters should be democratically controlled by

those intimately involved. We achieved a consensus, which so remarkably had eluded the Government and the Department.
In rejecting the transfer of functions, the Minister considered that the main objections to such a move were, first, the lack of consensus—this view seems to have been based largely, if not entirely, on correspondence from a handful of non-club anglers in Northern Ireland —and secondly, the implications for public expenditure because the Fisheries Conservancy Board would require a small number of extra staff to cope with the added duties. It was argued that it would be difficult if not impossible to make some parallel staff savings in the Department.
The Agriculture Committee of the Assembly took the latter aspect fully into account. Indeed, specific recommendations on this very issue were made in the report on the draft order. It was the second report on the subject. It was published in June and it was laid in this place for all hon. Members to scrutinise. Both the department and the fisheries conservancy board were recommended to review and reassess their staffing requirements because we, too, would not wish to see any adverse effect on public expenditure even though the sums involved are tiny compared with the total amount of money allocated in public expenditure in Northern Ireland.
The Minister still rejected our proposals on the management functions. We hoped to have further discussions with him, but the general election intervened and a new Minister, the Earl of Mansfield, was appointed to cover agriculture in Northern Ireland.
The proposed order was submitted to the Northern Ireland Committee in July and I was heartened by the support that was given to the proposals that had been forwarded by the Assembly and by those who spoke in the debate. But it seemed that even the views expressed in that debate fell on deaf ears. It was not until I met the Earl of Mansfield on 2 November that reason prevailed.
What the Minister told me then was most encouraging, and I am pleased to note that he reaffirmed his position in his speech in introducing the draft order in another place last Wednesday. The noble Lord has stated clearly and candidly that he is prepared to hand over management functions to our angling community and other interested bodies. He is prepared to devolve powers to an enlarged fisheries conservancy board, provided that the members of the board can show that they can act together responsibly and to the benefit of all concerned. This is something that the angling community is prepared to demonstrate. I have had talks with it and it is ready to prove its mettle. I have every confidence that it will do so. I am confident that it is willing and able to demonstrate its unity of purpose with a single-mindedness which will cut across all the barriers which one normally associates with our society in Northern Ireland. I believe that it will be able to pull together and reel in the bait of the management of these public waters.
I welcome the promise of developed democratic control in future. I welcome also the Minister's statement that he will establish procedures to ensure that the board has a regular and effective advisory input to Government. That is an important assurance, for which the anglers asked. It will help pave the way for the full devolution of management powers. I hope that we can progress quickly to that position.
Finally, I wish to record the value and significance of the contribution made by the Northern Ireland Assembly, especially its Agriculture Committee, in reaching the point at which we have now arrived.
It is clear that, without the Assembly's scrutiny of the proposals originally set out by the Government, the legislation presented to the House tonight and later appearing on the statute book would have failed to meet the needs, wishes and aspirations of those involved in salmon and inland fisheries in Northern Ireland, or of the democratically elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. As it is, the Government have been forced to reconsider their position and to review their proposals in the light of the overwhelming consensus and the cross-community support of those closely involved in angling matters. They have had to table the draft order now before us, which takes account of the recommendations of the Assembly. That is democracy in action, and I hail it as such.

Mr. Butler: I have about 10 minutes in which to reply to many points. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) knows his fishing very well. He made some detailed points which I shall not have time to answer from the Dispatch Box. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) spoke with his usual authority, augmented by the fact that he spoke as the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the Assembly.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) made a joke about the way in which the Government consult. It was not a terribly good joke. I do not believe that it is true in other areas, and it is certainly not true in this case. It would have been almost impossible to have held wider consultations. The hon. Member for Antrim, North recognised that fact. He recounted the history of the arrangements, and welcomed the fact that there will be regular consultative arrangements between the Department and the new fisheries conservancy board. He might have reminded the House that there will be a new requirement on the Minister to consult.
The hon. Gentleman also reminded the House of the contribution of the Assembly. It was indeed a good contribution, but it was not the only contribution. It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government were found to have got everything wrong. There were almost as many points of view on this subject as there are fingers on my two hands. I believe that we have the right answer, and the enabling provisions to which I have referred will allow progress to be made, if it can be.
Quite rightly, a certain amount of stress was laid on the question of finance. The hon. Member for Hammersmith asked me what I meant by a review of the financing of inland fisheries. What I meant was a very thorough review. Those who look at the finances of the present fisheries conservancy board will find that a deficit of nearly £200,000 runs from year to year. That state of affairs should not be allowed to continue. My noble Friend the Minister of State, the Earl of Mansfield, intends to have the review carried out and to form his conclusions accordingly.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East tried to run the old hare about the £65 licence. In order to get out of his difficulty, he pointed out that if one wanted to fish

throughout the Province on public as well as club waters one might have to pay a great deal more than the single licence fee. However, the scaremongering was in regard to the licence fee. This year a season's licence for game anglers is still only £9-50. By no stretch of the imagination could inflation bring that £9·50, plus 60 per cent., to £65 over three years—or certainly not under a Conservative Government. In fact, the hon. Gentleman reminded the House that anglers are prepared to pay quite a lot to take advantage of the wide choice which exists in the Province.
The question of finance is very serious, and will be addressed by my noble Friend.

Mr. William Ross: Both the Republic of Ireland and Her Majesty's Government make subventions to the Fisheries Commission. Why cannot that be done for the fisheries conservancy board?

Mr. Butler: Her Majesty's Government make large subventions to angling in the Province.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East spoke from his knowledge about pollution and reminded us of some serious occurrences. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will read what he said, be reminded of it and ensure that some of the types of accidents that have taken place in the past do not happen again. I share the hon. Gentleman's deep concern about that. By drawing attention to the problems and pointing not just to the Department of the Environment but to the farming community and many others, the hon. Gentleman stressed the vital significance of pollution control. That has to be one of the two prime responsibilities of the new FCB.
I have to take the hon. Gentleman to task about the membership of the board. Calling it "a fix" is unnecessary. He dislikes the provision requiring six names of club anglers to be put forward from which four should be drawn. It is fairly standard procedure, and I have not heard him criticise the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 which required six rod anglers to be chosen by the Minister from a list of not fewer than 10. There are precedents for the provision and he has no right to suggest that there would be picking and choosing to avoid the right people. We want to ensure that out of those who are finally selected for the board there is a sensible geographic and other spread.
The hon. Gentleman said that he would have no independent anglers on the board. The hon. Member for Antrim, North said that there was no conflict, but here we have conflict. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East would deny the independent anglers the right to sit on the board. The hon. Member for Antrim, North said that the Northern Ireland Advisory Angling Council recommended exactly right.
If one can devise a satisfactory method there will need to be some form of election. It should be possible in a place as small as the Province to have a few meetings which those who are interested can attend. The hon. Gentleman denies that right to the independent anglers, yet he wants to have the control of public waters put into the hands of the new FCB. Who are the people who principally use the public waters but the independent fishermen? He talks to me about democracy and yet he wishes the public waters to be controlled by a body on which there is no independent fishermen representation. That is why they have been so anxious about the possibility of the public waters coming under the board's management. They have


been anxious that club anglers would achieve too much control. He has fortified that anxiety in their minds and my feeling that we are right to proceed as we are with the control of public waters.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North said—I may not quote him exactly—that my noble Friend was prepared to devolve the management of the public waters to the new board if certain conditions were fulfilled. I must correct the hon. Member. In recent letters my noble Friend set out, and I repeated it tonight, the circumstances in which the Government would be prepared to consider such a transfer to the board. Although the hon. Member did not intend to mislead, I believe that he was mistaken in what he said. I believe that I have quoted him correctly, but he gave the wrong impression.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister define what he means by "intending"? He promised to consider the matter and devolve.

Mr. Butler: I do not believe that I can sensibly add to what I said in my opening remarks, and what is clearly written in my noble Friend's letter to the hon. Gentleman in his position as Chairman of the Assembly Committee. It is writ large. My noble Friend was going no further than I had in putting forward this new provision in the draft order which would provide for the board, on an agency basis, to take on a number of different functions, which might include the management of public waters. We are concerned, and have to be concerned, that angling is organised and operated to the best advantage in the Province, to the benefit of those who live there and to the benefit of tourists tourists.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith asked me whether the board would be able to promote tourism. If he reads the order, he will see exactly what the board may do in that respect.
We believe that we need to have waters that are available to independent anglers and that are termed "the public waters". There is generally an excess of public waters in the west of the Province. In the east there is a scramble for those waters, they are limited and they are difficult to acquire. We have waters under the control of the clubs, which I said had a special responsibility to maximise the opportunities available to them. If they wish to extend their authority in angling, the opportunity is provided in the order, as we have made clear. Given the responsibilities as they will rest for the time being with the Department, and given the responsibilities that are available to the clubs, angling will benefit, provided that the fisheries conservancy board carries out its primary functions. Its primary functions on which all are agreed —the stopping of illegal fishing and pollution control—must be carried out as effectively as possible. It is those two jobs that the new reinforced larger board, with its more streamlined organisation through its executive committee, has responsibilities to fulfil.

I commend the order to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 9.

Division No. 114]
[12.42 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Amess, David
Baldry, Anthony


Ancram, Michael
Bellingham, Henry


Ashby, David
Berry, Sir Anthony


Atkinson, David (8'm'th E)
Best, Keith





Biffen, Rt Hon John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Moynihan, Hon C.


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Murphy, Christopher


Brinton, Tim
Newton, Tony


Brooke, Hon Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Norris, Steven


Bruinvels, Peter
Osborn, Sir John


Burt, Alistair
Ottaway, Richard


Butler, Hon Adam
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Butterfill, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Powley, John


Carttiss, Michael
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Chope, Christopher
Raffan, Keith


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Rhodes James, Robert


Conway, Derek
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Coombs, Simon
Roe, Mrs Marion


Cope. John
Rowe, Andrew


Couchman, James
Ryder, Richard


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Dorrell, Stephen
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Sayeed, Jonathan


Dover, Denshore
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Evennett, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Eyre, Reginald
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Fallon, Michael
Speed, Keith


Farr, John
Spencer, D.


Favell, Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Forth, Eric
Stern, Michael


Fox, Marcus
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Goodlad, Alastair
Stewart, Allan (Eastwaod)


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Stradling Thomas, J.


Harris, David
Terlezki, Stefan


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Hayes, J.
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Hayward, Robert
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Thurnham, Peter


Holt, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Howard, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Viggers, Peter


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Waddington, David


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Knowles, Michael
Walden, George


Lang, Ian
Waller, Gary


Lester, Jim
Watts, John


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Wheeler, John


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Wolfson, Mark


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Wood, Timothy


MacGregor, John
Woodcock, Michael


Maclean, David John.
Yeo, Tim


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Malins, Humfrey



Mather, Carol
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Mr. John Major and


Merchant, Piers
Mr. Michael Neubert.




NOES


Beggs, Roy
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James



Nicholson, J.
Tellers for the Noes:


Parry, Robert
Mr. Harold McCusker and


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Rev. Martin Smyth.


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Fisheries (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 15th November, be approved.

OCCUPIERS LIABILITY BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 69 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

MERCHANT SHIPPING (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 69 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

MERCHANT SHIPPING (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of provisions of that Act relating to improvement notices and prohibition notices.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

PETITION

Southwark (Hospital Beds)

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of 24 nurses and others, the nurses being employed in Guy's hospital, Southwark, and working for the Lewisham and north Southwark district health authority.
The petition has been organised by the Guy's hospital nurses action group, who have been to the House twice in the last seven days to make their views known to hon. Members. More than 50 nurses visited the House last week and 23 nurses came to the House today on the occasion of the Second Reading debate of the Health and Social Security Bill.
The petitioners say:
We wish to express our anger and concern at the recent cuts in financial allocation to the Lewisham and North Southwark District Health Authority which has resulted in the threatened closure of beds in most hospitals throughout the district.
We deplore the closure of 180 beds and any lessening of the facilities available for the people of this community which will lead to lengthening time on waiting lists and needless suffering which may even result in some patients dying whilst awaiting admission.
We urge the Minister and Her Majesty's Government not to renege on the promise that they made before the last General Election, that the National Health Service is "safe in their hands".
The petition contains 15,000 signatures of people who share the anger and concern that is felt on this issue, and who have signed the accompanying petition which is in similar wording and which is to be presented by hon. Members representing other parts of the district, one of whom, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) is present tonight.
To lie upon the Table.

Plastic Pound Note

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]

Mr. Marcus Fox: The reason for this debate is important, and it goes much further than the suggestion that a plastic £1 note should be introduced. It is important because our traditional £1 note is under threat, and the Economic Secretary will forgive me when I suggest that a little dirty work at the crossroads may be in hand. By that I mean that, much more quickly than we think, there may be from the Treasury a move to take our £1 note away from us, leaving us with only a £1 coin. My hon. Friends know me well enough to appreciate that I would not lightly, in an Adjournment debate and at this hour, make such a strong statement.
Many of my hon. Friends feel as I do on this issue, and in the new year, if I am driven to it, I shall table an early-day motion on the subject. I am sure that it will attract many signatures, because we must take care when certain proposals are foisted on us.
It should not be thought that the £1 coin was introduced without causing some anxiety. In my part of the world a £1 note is a valuable piece of currency and is not to be dismissed lightly. Many of my constituents, when doing their Christmas shopping, do not just buy computers as presents. Indeed, when they do their weekly shopping they watch every penny, and they certainly do not want to have only a £1 coin that gets lost among their other loose change. That is happening now, but it would happen all the more if what is forecast were to happen.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is to reply to this debate because I have always found him courteous, although in some answers to parliamentary questions on this subject he has given the impression that people were consulted about the introduction of the £1 coin. Having looked carefully into the matter, I suggest that the only consultation that took place—I agree that many groups were brought into it — was to question people about the design in metal that it should be. They were not given a choice between a coin or a note, be it of paper or any other substance. In other words, in that consultation people did not have a choice, or option.
In my view, if people had been given a choice, the £1 coin would never have seen the light of day. I do not want to cite examples from other countries, and perhaps I need only mention America, where a dollar coin was introduced. It received very short shrift and it is now a thing of the past as the American people overwhelmingly opted for the dollar note that they had always known. I do not stand alone in my warning to the Minister about the phasing out of the £1 note.
On 18 November 1983, the Minister said:
It has always been the Government's intention to withdraw the £1 note from circulation in due course once the public have had time to become accustomed to the £1 coin." —[Official Report, 18 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 596.]
That plan is misguided. There is another option called consumer choice. Conservative Members talk a great deal about choice, but it appears that the Government do not want it to apply to currency. Yet that is a classic area for choice. We must be careful not to make changes that cause people to point their fingers at us because they have not been consulted.
The public are far from becoming accustomed to the £1 coin. Indeed, the reverse is true many people detest it. They live with it, but by any yardstick the new coin is a flop. Short of imposing it, there is no hope of it being accepted voluntarily.
The figures speak for themselves—and who better to quote than my hon. Friend the Minister? When the coin was introduced, 580 million notes were in circulation. By last month, that figure had fallen by only 50 million. The banks hold about 50 per cent. of the coins that have been minted—about 280 million. There is little demand for the coins, and they have not disposed of their initial allocations. If I am wrong, no doubt my hon. Friend will correct me.
There are other ways of ensuring that notes are phased out. They are becoming so filthy that people may be persuaded that a coin is a better alternative. Perhaps that is a deliberate policy. I am rather long in the tooth, having been in the House for 13 years. Until the coins were introduced, when I cashed a cheque at our Post Office I used to get new notes. I have not had any for months. When I mentioned that to the cashier—who shall be nameless as he is a public servant—he told me that the Post Office does not get new notes any more. He said that they were too expensive. Apparently there is a considerable charge for new notes. I cannot complain about that as I am trying to persuade our nationalised industries to be more efficient and to make the public sector aware of the need to economise. But there is something rather sinister in the fact that I cannot obtain a reasonably clean £1 note. I hope that that is not a deliberate policy to show that, ultimately, we must turn to the coin.
One option would be to continue to run the note alongside the coin. But that means a fair test, and new notes must be issued. The notes in circulation must not be allowed to become ever more tatty and dirty. If my colleagues turned out their pockets, I should be surprised if there was a new, clean £1 note among them. That option assumes that there is only one alternative, which is to move from notes to coins. But there is another way, which is the subject of the debate. I refer to a plastic pound note. When many of my colleagues heard about that they thought that it was rather hilarious. They perhaps had visions of something like an Access card. I had better be careful to maintain the impartiality for which I am famous. They may also have had visions of something like an American Express card or Visa card. However, the plastic note is as thin as paper. It is very hard to tell the difference between it and paper. I am grateful to my neighbours in Bingley, because some of them have friends in the Isle of Man, and they have sent me detailed news of what is happening in that little part of the United Kingdom.
Those on the Isle of Man are far more enlightened than we are. Their research goes back nearly 15 years. They know what consumer demand is. Since decimalisation in 1971 they have retained a 50p coin and a note. I leave it to hon. Members to guess which is the most popular. There are no prizes. Since 1978, they have had a £1 note and a £1 coin. Again, there are no prizes for guessing which is the most popular. Since 1981—and this shows how far-sighted they are they have had a £5 note and a £5 coin. In every instance it has been proved conclusively that notes are preferred. That is true the world over.
I admit that we have a problem with our existing f:1 note, just as the Isle of Man had. Pound notes deteriorate


much more quickly these days. It is reckoned that a £1 note has a life of about nine months. As a coin has a life of 30 to 50 years, the choice is easy. The Isle of Man has opted for a plastic note that is specially designed. The results have been staggering. The notes were issued by the banks from 23 November. Within 11 days, 33 per cent. of new notes printed were in circulation. The old paper note is still valid, but all new notes will now be plastic. The public's reaction has been startling. The new notes were received, according to an official spokesman for the Isle of Man. with delight, interest and acclaim. People liked the note's durability, and it is expected to last between five and 15 years. Who can say how long the notes will last, but several of my colleagues have tried to tear the note by hand and none of them has succeeded. It is virtually impossible. It can be folded. It does not absorb water, so it is resistant to dirt which is carried by moisture. It will, therefore, overcome all the problems of the dirty note.
No doubt people will want to know the cost of such a note. However, there is hardly any difference in the cost of producing the old note and the plastic note now issued in the Isle of Man. The difference is 2·8p. With our demand, that cost difference could no doubt be reduced. I do not know what the cost of producing a £1 coin is. Perhaps the Minister can tell us. Of course. there are drawbacks. For example, the plastic cannot hold a watermark or plastic strip. However, it is a low denomination note. Forgers will not be thrilled about the idea of making a £1 note. They are interested in fivers, tenners and £20 notes. I suppose that the risk of detection is just as great, but the take is much higher. No doubt the Treasury will make much of the idea that we could prevent forgery of such a note. But I have some good news for it. The Treasury may believe that there is no answer to counterfeiting. But can we talk about building Concorde, putting a man on the moon, and fighting a war in the Falklands and then say that something like this is beyond us? I cannot accept that there is no way in which to solve the problem.
Since initiating the debate, I have been inundated with messages of support. Two major companies, one of which is an American multinational employing many thousands of people in the United Kingdom, have given me a solution. I shall not give the name—it consists of three letters — of the highly successful British chemical company that has informed me that its petrochemicals and plastics division can solve the problem.
In America driving licences are used like identity cards. They must be carried at all times and it is vital that forgeries are able to be detected. Again, we are talking about plastics and laminates, but a watermark has been devised so that a small illumination will show whether the licence is a forgery. It would not take much to adapt that.
What is beyond doubt is that the El coin is not acceptable. I have been in touch with two supermarkets. The chairman of Tesco described the situation as a nightmare and said that customers refused to take the coins. Every hon. Member appreciates the confusion of elderly people. In a sub-post office today I heard two elderly ladies say, "Please don't give us any of those coins." One lady actually pushed them back and received notes instead.
Returning to basics, I have a sneaking feeling that the Treasury intends to do the dirty on us and to withdraw£1

notes in the near future. That must not be. The Minister must at least promise that he will evaluate the possibility of a plastic note, together with the information that I have given today. I hope that he will also allow time for my proposals about tackling the problem of forgery to be understood.
The Minister's Department is not the most popular in the United Kingdom. It has the greatest possible interest in conquering inflation. Yet it is proposing a measure which, psychologically, will undermine its policy. One has only to remember the effects of decimalisation in that respect. Will we never learn? Compulsion—the idea that the man in Whitehall knows best — is very bad policy. It is our currency and the £1 note is central to everything. Why should it be swept away? It would be a breath of fresh air if the Treasury would say that it is open to persuasion on this.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ian Stewart): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) on obtaining this Adjournment debate, on the topical subject that he has chosen and on the very agreeable way in which he has presented his case.
I think that we agree in part on the problem although we disagree about the solution. We seem to share the view that the £1 note is no longer satisfactory in currency as a medium of exchange as it once was. In my view, however, the right response is not a plastic note such as that now offered in the Isle of Man, but a £1 coin designed to meet the needs of current uses, in which slot machines play an increasingly important part.
Due to its decline in purchasing power in recent years, the £1 is now used far more than before as a denomination in cash purchase and change-giving. When the 10 shilling note was replaced by the 50p coin in 1969, its purchasing power was more than twice that of the £1 note today. That leads us all to treat the £1 note rather differently. Instead of being carefully placed in a wallet, it is mistreated by the public, retailers and so on. It is frequently stuffed into pockets and purses instead of wallets and kept in tills with coins instead of being paid into banks for sorting and return to the Bank of England for destruction and replacement.
In terms of consumer choice, therefore, in a sense the public are being consulted through their daily use of the £1 note. If it is under threat, the threat comes from the way in which it is misused. The result has been a serious deterioration of £1 notes in currency. Tatty and dirty notes remain in circulation far longer than they did previously. The results of that are obvious to us all although I assure my hon. Friend that the Bank of England is issuing new notes at about the same rate as last year although the stock itself has declined. It is difficult and expensive to maintain a reasonable standard of note when that stage is reached. Although it represents only about 6 per cent. of the total value of the notes in circulation, the £l note accounts for nearly 40 per cent. of the new notes that are issued. Those are fairly recent figures. One of the consequences of inflation is that the £1 note is not now used in banks' cash dispensers.
While the value of total notes in circulation increased by one third between 1978 and 1983, the number of £1 notes in circulation has fallen steadily from more than 800 million in 1978 to about 550 million now. Moreover, there


has been a decline in the number of £1 notes in circulation of about 10 per cent. in the past year. It is not surprising, therefore, that earlier this year the Government decided to introduce a coin for the £1 unit although we made it clear that the coin and the note would circulate together for an extended period before the note is phased out in due course.
I should now like to deal with my right hon. Friend's argument that a plastic £1 note could serve better than the paper one. I am afraid that the matter is not quite as straightforward as he might suppose, although he has imagined some of the points that I intend to raise. There are several reasons for proceeding with caution. Chief among them is the importance of security. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that it would not be prudent for me to go into detail about counterfeiting and its detection, but I shall make a few points on the subject.
Tyvek 919, the material that is being used for the Isle of Man notes cannot, as the Isle of Man authorities admit. accommodate several key features such as the security thread and a high quality watermark. My hon. Friend mentioned them. Such notes would have to be much more sophisticated than I think is possible to be satisfactory for security purposes. In Britain, we are used to those security devices to check authenticity and any note that is suspected of being a forgery.
Sharpness of features is another feature of genuine paper bank notes. The worn plastic bank notes that I have seen exhibit an unacceptable wearing of the design. The lack of the characteristic feel or crispness of a genuine banknote has also often led to the detection of forgery. I do not want to suggest that wholesale forgery of Isle of Man £1 notes is likely. The security implications of using Tyvek 919 in the limited currency of the Isle of Man are rather different from those in the whole of the United Kingdom. With modern reprographic techniques, however, the risk of extensive forgery and the circulation of false Bank of England notes, even for a value as low as £1, would he considerably increased if the security specification was lowered.
As my hon. Friend has mentioned, the manufacturers of Tyvek 919 claim that the material will give notes a life which is at least four times longer than that of traditional low denomination bank notes. The Isle of Man authorities are more optimistic and look to a circulation life of between five and 15 years. Being realistic, however, they have said that:
only practical experience will indicate their true life".
Because of differences of scale, the experiences of the Isle of Man and Haiti, which is the only other country that I know has experimented with plastic bank notes, will not necessarily be directly relevant to the United Kingdom.
As to the durability of the new material, I am advised that wear tests show that the material has a tendency to delaminate. That can lead to the disintegration of notes and gives worn notes, even if still comparatively clean, a distressed appearance. Another major problem with plastic notes is their lack of resistance to heat. Such a note which is left on a radiator or another warm surface will crinkle badly and permanently—some even shrivel up.
Plastic notes do not always look as clean as the new Isle of Man samples that we saw last month. I have seen, and can show my hon. Friend, some plastic notes which display only too clearly the effect of use and age. I can only describe them as being in a very unpleasant condition. Those are the serious defects and are quite

separate from our anxiety about the potential for forgery. My hon. Friend will know that no major note-issuing authority has yet felt confident enough to abandon paper as the best available and most secure substance for banknote printing. That suggests that the search for alternatives to paper still has some way to go, but if a satisfactory alternative material for banknotes were to emerge in the future, we should, of course, give it full consideration. The material so far available does not appear to provide the answer.
I remind my hon. Friend of the point that I made earlier about the problem with the £1 note, which the public is already treating as though it were in coin form. There is no reason to believe that a plastic note would be treated any differently. Various comments have been made about the £1 coin, so I shall say a little about that. The issues from the Royal Mint are proceeding at a satisfactory rate. At the end of October, the Mint had issued 150 million coins, of which 136 million were in general circulation. As one would expect, there has been a notable increase recently as Christmas approaches, with issues from the Mint reaching £170 million and more than 150 million in circulation this week. Eight months after the launch, the £1 coin already represents over 20 per cent. of total £I units in circulation. The uptake of a new coin is always gradual. The 20p piece met with initial dislike, but it moved into regular use within six months of its first issue.
My hon. Friend mentioned the difficulties in the United States, where a dollar coin did not successfully replace the greenback and said that notes there, and generally elsewhere, are preferred to coins. Circumstances are rather different here. The British public accepted a coin of roughly equal value to a dollar when the 50p was issued in 1969, and experience elsewhere has shown, for example in France with the 10 franc piece and in Germany with the 5 deutschmark, both roughly equivalent to £1 in value, that the public in Europe are not averse to high value coins.
It is sometimes alleged that the £1 coin is difficult to distinguish from other coins. In recognition of some sections of the community, organisations for the blind, handicapped and elderly were consulted in advance about the coin's specifications. Tests carried out by Nottingham university showed that blind people had no difficulty in distinguishing different coins. The wide rim on the 20p coin was put there to help, and the additional thickness of the £1 coin serves a similar purpose. Indeed, after the £1 coin was launched, representatives of the bodies that we had consulted confirmed that the £1 coin, because of its relative thickness, was sufficiently identifiable for their purposes.
Other extensive consultations took place before the coin was launched. These revealed a demand for a £1 coin, particularly from those, like transport undertakings, that use coin-operated machines. I am advised that, for example, London Transport, which favoured a coin, has already converted some of its ticket machines and hopes to complete conversion in the coming months.
Finally, as a Treasury Minister, I should respond to my hon. Friend's comments about costs. It is true that the Isle of Man expects to make savings from the use of the plastic note compared to the costs of conventional material, but the plastic note does not compare well against the coin on cost. I should be as keen as any to take the public expenditure savings that should follow. Details of cost comparisions are understandably commercially confidential between the Mint and commercial firms, but I assure


my hon. Friend that, although perhaps modest in the scale of total public expenditure, there are useful public expenditure savings to be had from the coin over time.
For the reasons that I have given, I have come to the conclusion, after considerable thought, that, on a number

of counts, and particularly because of the risk of counterfeiting, plastic notes are not appropriate for the currency of the United Kingdom.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past One o'clock.